User talk:Geogre - Knowledge

953:

mind. In that respect, you are probably the mosy naively honest person on Knowledge. 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.

2929: 320:

why I don't need Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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.)

2393:

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.

720:

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.

1374:

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.

4512:, you claimed that the picture was uploaded by the photographer and that the photographer gave it a public domain licence, but I can't see any evidence for your claim. It doesn't say who the photographer is, and no licence was provided. The copyright tag which the uploader provided states that the author died more than 100 years ago and that the file therefore is in the public domain in countries with a copyright term of 100 years or less, and that the file also is in the public domain in the United States for an unstated reason. However, the copyright tag is not a 968:

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 Knowledge 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?

4632: 730:

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

2919: 3729: 3514: 2909: 4973: 4729: 3238: 5198: 4057: 4208: 3953: 3889: 3825: 3761: 3610: 3546: 3395: 3291: 3174: 2722: 21: 121: 2437: 2032: 1657: 4688: 1152:

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 ;-)

1954:, 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. 5078: 4421: 3354: 908:" 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? 1729:. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Knowledge, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Knowledge, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- 3697: 3482: 4653:"anyone who thinks that they can win a struggle against the voices of oppression on Knowledge is misdirecting his or her energies grossly, if not criminally", for your user page as a piece of inspiring literature including critical commentary, for "The idea is not to be competing, but rather looking for elements of trust." - missed - repeating from 3257:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5168:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 5130:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2593:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2308:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1928:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1890:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1796:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 4874:. As that has remained in place for eleven years, I think that there's a consensus that the present image is superior to this one which is being considered for deletion. In other words, there's no information that I can see in this image that the one in the article doesn't already convey in a more pleasing fashion. -- 1394:

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

833:

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

468:

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).

467:

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

435:

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.

361:

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

319:

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

289:

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

2112:

Thursday next, 29 July, will be the anniversary of the last time Geogre made a contribution to Knowledge. 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

1751:

I'm here to ask if you're interested in participating in a public discussion. I've been talking with some people about deletion processes around here, and we're talking about doing a moderated discussion for the next newsletter. The idea is that, although "inclusionist" and "deletionist" are clearly

1478:

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 ..."

1373:

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

1013:

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

785:

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 Knowledge, we get bloody battles, with both trying to throw

719:

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

677:

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

642:

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

508:

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

475:

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 Knowledge 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

454:

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

4902:

It was the idea of adding it that I meant would be "merely decorative". Nevertheless, it might work if you think it brings something extra to the article. The original caption for that image was "John Arbuthnot by Sir Godfrey Kneller shows him at the height of his literary output." So you could use

4224:

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

3969:

3905:

3841:

3777:

3626:

3562:

3411:

3307:

2550:

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

2453:

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

2392:

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

952:

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

729:

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

614:

to have real surveys of Knowledge 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

577:

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

305:

I've noticed, at least in the past three years or so, that popularity on Knowledge 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

2367:

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;

2270:

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

1755:

We're thinking that it would be interesting, and perhaps bring out some good points for the community's rumination, if we have people meet in a discussion in order to articulate opposing perspectives on a number of questions. I know that you have written some meta-pages on the subject of deletion,

1410:

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

1151:

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

780:

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

609:

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

434:

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

2363:

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 Knowledge's finest-ever content contributors at all;

1082:

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

775:

I've tried, but the problem is that, although they're all on the right track, they're falling victim to Knowledge 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

349:

1. Outline a set of criteria that would make a person qualified -- experience with all elements of Knowledge, 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

2225:

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

592:

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?

5061:

Hi Diamond -- Geogre has been gone for a while. I removed the prod, as this is a significant organization. Needs some references to bring it to 2020 standards, as in 2005 we usually did not include footnotes, only a general links/sources/references section at the end. (Any watchers on this page

3681:

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

3466:

2093:

It's been a long time since you turned your back on all the insults delivered to you - don't you think it's perhaps time to come back? - no need to forgive or forget (I certainly would not), but perhaps move on and do some writing - someone has to write some decent pages around the place, and I

1155:

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',

685:

I'll have to go with e-mail on the rewards of neediness. I think Knowledge 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 Knowledge is a

480:

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

423:

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

986:

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,

385:

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

967:

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

485:

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

2696:

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

4370:

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the

643:

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.

2226:

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;

1756:

and I wonder if you'd be interested in being a participant in such an event. I seem to have volunteered to be a mergist-minded moderator, and part of that gig involves looking for people who can eloquently express ideas about deleting and keeping articles. I thought of you.

373:

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

2203:(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 " 1541:. (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. -- 4530:

The work of art is 2D, just as it is when we take a photograph of a portrait. Are you going to go around nominating all the images we have of portraits because they are 3D objects? You'll be suggesting next that the thickness of the paint on the painting makes it 3D.

4366:

or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

476:

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

2875:

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.

1411:

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'.

1014:

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,

3205:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge 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 5222:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

521:

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.

4991:

Without sources for nine years. I don't see real indication of notability here. BEFORE completed in Google Books and News (I have no access to British newspapers). Deprod if you can cite significant coverage, but be sure to actually cite it, or it'll go to

4832:

so presumably Britannica finds the image useful. In any case, if the image is required here in future, it can always be sourced from the Britannica article as any image of a portrait by an 18th century artist is clearly in the public domain under US law.

2654:

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.

1679:

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.

2673:

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.

855:

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.

786:

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

2630:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

4545:

The work of art is 2D, but this is not just a photograph of a 2D work of art. It is a photograph of a 3D object (a book on a table) which happens to contain a 2D artwork. Since the picture includes 3D stuff, it's non-free.

565:

I hope it does some good. I don't care about the credit, but it seems to me that one of the reasons Knowledge has been doomed is that the project is a good deal more socially adventurous than the people at it. While

4182:

I'm sorry but Geogre hasn't edited for over two years, so he may not notice your request. Knowledge articles are only appropriate for subjects that meet our standards for notability, so I'd suggest you read the page

5226:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4480:

such as a statue, with a photograph of 3D object such as a book or a painting, where the artwork is 2D and inegible to generate a fresh copyright. This is hardly surprising considering the rate he is working - he

4507:

This is a photograph of a 3D object (a book), not a photograph of a 2D object (a page of a book). If the 3D parts of the picture are removed, then the picture can be kept, otherwise it has to be deleted. Also,

2697:

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! --

1171:

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.

629:

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

260:

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?

4458:

How on earth could this possibly be unfree? The photographer uploaded it, gave it a public domain license, and has since left the project. The subject of the photograph is itself a public domain book.

4870:

We could, but I don't think it would improve the article; it would be merely decorative. It was actually in use as the lead image from 2006 to 2008 when it was changed for the present colour image by

3201:

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 "

2364:

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.

936:

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.

276:

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.

4592:

We are trying on this project to support and expand free content; we don't need your uninformed rhetoric whose only effect is to needlessly impede or block the progress of open knowledge. --

455:

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.

346:: One Knowledge, 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. 4695: 5123: 902:

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

690:

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

4202: 2837: 2586: 386:

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

2512:

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

405:

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.

4769: 1455: 708:

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?

390:

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

4357: 2716: 1102: 871: 427:

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.

4440: 2554:

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

5161: 5113: 2849: 421:

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.

4485:

and could not possibly be doing due diligence in checking his nominations. This isn't the first time this has happened and I'm now sorely tempted to take this issue to

900:" 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 " 4658: 2951:

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

3755: 2049:. 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. 1637:

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.

4171: 4118: 4113: 4108: 4103: 1921: 1883: 1807: 1713: 4245: