User:Bishonen/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thank you[edit]

I want to thanks for all your support. I know you have been very hurt by the disgusting treatment you have received in this horrible debacle. As you, together with Geogre, are amongst the encyclopedia's finest and most valuable editors you deserved better. However, I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

De nada, Giacomo. I wish the Wikimedia foundation would remove the official-sounding name from #wikipedia-en-admins, that's all. It's all wrong that that poison pit should have "Wikipedia" in its name. And who's going to remove this claim in WP:IRC: "The Wikipedia channels on freenode are the official place to chat about Wikipedia on IRC." The arbcom have shown that statement to be false--nothing official about it, no Wikimedia control of it. Bishonen | talk 13:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I've made the change. I mentioned it on the talk page to the IRC page. We'll see what happens next. Geogre 13:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I went one step further [1]. Cheers. Ben Aveling 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately within minutes of me announcing I was stepping back Tony and the IRC gang immediately began to blacken my name again on IRC [2] I never believed the new "policemen" would bother to do anything about it, but I did expect at least a pretence! Giano 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoration literature question[edit]

Congratulations on the front page article - seems it's been listed for ages though. It's really nice to see an overview article of such quality there. It seems sometimes, that only the more marginal, niche articles can jump the hurdles, whilst the invaluable overviews get bogged down in disputes and difficulties - getting a single editorial 'voice' for these articles is a real achievement. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's on today? Cool. Geogre wrote it, you know, I just contributed a section. He's the one with the soaring eagle eye! Bishonen | talk 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes, it is, and it's wonderful too; I've set it aside to look forward to reading in detail in the morning. Newyorkbrad 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be reading it this morning as well as I don't think I've read it completely through. It will also give context to The Man of Mode, next on my reading list after finishing Tis Pity She's a Whore. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't read The Man of Mode, Gan? I think you'll really like it. I feel it's like the perfect play for you. It's as funny as all getout. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm quite excited about it. After Tis Pity, I need something a bit lighter. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Man of Mode is fantastic, and so is Love for Love. Really fun parts for an actor and great jokes. (I'm only at the computer for a few minutes, but the shocked FAR fanatics on the talk page and the griping piping voices deserved a swatting.) Geogre 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada[edit]

Alkalada is begging me to be unblocked and promising good behavior. I'd like to give him a chance. Any objections? Fred Bauder 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Who...? Oh, I see. He's a very young editor but with a pretty bad record of POV-pushing and puppeteering and intransigence. This time he has apparently done exactly what I asked[3] [4], that's great. I hope he's turning over a new leaf. Feel free to unblock. I also suggest the harmless indulgence of asking him which identity he likes best, unblock that one, and exhort him to stick to it. Tell him I'll know if he creates any more socks. (I will, as his style is unmistakable.) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Thank you, unblocking Alkalada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Fred Bauder 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Hahahihihoho, using the account Alkalada, is back to his old ways and hasn't changed his ways at all, so I've requested that Alkalada be blocked at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets KingIvan 08:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, I have put sources on most of the things I have changed like the demographics of Bosnia and like the names of cities in Northern Bosnia. And if somebody is BORN IN BOSNIA, THEN HE IS AUTOMATICALLY A BOSNIAN, it doesnt matter wheather he is a croat, serb or bosniaks.

How can somebody bor in Bosnia be Croatian? Alkalada 11:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you continue like this then I will report you for vandalism. Alkalada 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okey, this is enough.

Bishonen, and all other moderators, I am hearby reporting user Ivan Kricancic for repeted vandalism. This user has not put a single source on his edits and continued his vandalims without any reference to source. He is just taking away articles where he wants and when he wants.

Because of that, I report him now for constantly vandalism. Alkalada 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only one vandalizing and violating Wikipedia policies is YOU, User:Hahahihihoho. Please refrain from violating Wikiepdia policies.KingIvan 11:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ehum... you are violating wikipedia policies when you TAKE AWAY SOURCED ARTICLES. Alkalada 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

With regard to reminding user's of policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, there is never any harm in repeating them. The use of templates for all users, established or not, is not prohibited. I prefer them because it is my epxerience that in many situations they are preferable to users actually speaking their mind (like your comment about users leaving).

If you believe that the personal attack referenced is harmless then you will not mind me making the same comment with regard to your so-called advice: why are you so interested in me? Per WP:NPA you should comment on contributions and not contributors.

Posting a comment like "Yes, I do see that you announce your imminent departure, but that doesn't malke me think this advice redundant. Most people who make such announcements, in my experience, tend to retract them pretty soon." (diff) does not sound productive to me. It sounds like a challenge, which can deter users from returning. If that is your intent I find it utterly disgusting. I would advise you to please consider phrasing yourself differently in the future, or if that is not possible to refrain from commenting at all. Such comments are not helpful.

--Oden 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there speaks the wikilawyer! It's not prohibited. I explain to you what bad ideas it is to point to the three Troll Favorite Policies, and to use templates against established users; I enlighten you as to the massive consensus against such behaviour; and that's all you've got? (Well, except that you prefer templates because they're preferable, but that doesn't do a lot for the advancement of human knowledge, either.) It's "not prohibited" so I'm going to do it? Don't worry, I'm not going to waste any more of my time explaining stuff to you. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Unbelievable: Templates are for use with null accounts and incommunicative users. Experienced administrators use them for IP accounts and nonce accounts, where there is every reason to believe that there is "no one" there or that the person there is absolutely committed to trolling. They are never appropriate for established users, ever. They are incommunicative, carry with them no explanation, and have no justification offered within them. They're billboards, not communication. It is disruptive and inappropriate to try to drive users away, even bad ones, as bad turns to good, but gone never turns that way. To say that there is a consensus against this use, Bishonen, is litotes. There is virtual unanimity about it. Geogre 02:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:Troll Favorite Policies should be an essay. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

some updates[edit]

I'm not sure if you are following the discussion at User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's. I don't know what Ben is trying to do with that. So anyway just keeping you up-to-date. Btw thanks for the e-mail (I'm almost a week late) and good to see that you removed the leaving announcement from your page. Hope you stick around.--Certified.Gangsta 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm..and also an IP edited Isberg's userpage, [[5]]?? Is that you or can it be Guardian Tiger?--Certified.Gangsta 00:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that discussion, Boney. I disengage, I go Zen, I take stuff off my watchlist. I advise you to do the same. The IP isn't me, I've no idea who it is. Bishonen | talk 01:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Sure, thanks for the advise. The pages have been removed from my watchlist.--Certified.Gangsta 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bish, sorry to be a pain, but I'm going to ask you to have a look at User_talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's#User:Guardian_Tiger_Timeline. It's an annotated copy of a timeline Gangsta put together. Tiger and I have been discussing it and we don't believe that it demonstrates that Tiger has been abusive. (A sock, yes, but you and I could both be hung for that.) I'd like your feedback. I want to take this back to ANI and I'd very much like to have your support when I do. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked someone today and noticed that the edit summary for one of its edit read Jesus is coming, look busy! Look busy, I like that! El_C 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been curious to see how this has been turning out and I think you may find User_talk:BenAveling/RevolverOcelotX_allegations interesting. I couldn't quite understand why the editor was so emphatic in the blocked user's innocence. The page in summation attributes all the problems the blocked user has had to differences with only me and Certified Gangsta. I think someone's altruistic tendancies might be creating a cognitive bias that is starting to skew the obvious facts in reality here. The blocked editor has had problems with many other editors on Wikipedia, me and CG are the only ones (and you) who tried to do anything about it. Enjoy your day. ShuckyDucky 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Open up[edit]

I'm with the Dawg! El_C 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[Fondly.] I never understand a word you say, honey! Bishonen | talk 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I saw the logs[edit]

I now understand why you are angry. --Kim Bruning 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day[edit]

Hi Bishonen; I was actually working on this, but hadn't learned anything useful. I got the pic to display by copy-and-pasting the body of the template, {{POTD/{{{date|{{#time:Y-m-d}}}}}|condensed}}, but I don't really know what I'm doing. Anyway, it it a cool picture. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A vs An[edit]

Do we refer to a hypothesis or an hypothesis - I think it might be an. We usually put an an in front of words beginning with vowels eg. an irritation but I've got it in my head that h sometimes has a peculiar status eg. an honourable peace. Is this just 1. a product of my confusion or 2. archaic usage or 3. quite correct?......--Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't think of asking me? I'm tempted not to answer, but the pedantic urge is too strong. /H/ is not a consonant. It is an aspirant. (I.e. it is a breath mark. It tells us to blow out with a hhhhhhhhhh.) Therefore, traditionally, we treat words beginning with /h/ as beginning with whatever letter comes next, which is usually a vowel. However, many people now think it sounds weird and therefore will use "a." Basically, I say "an hypothesis" and "an history," but some people will think these are wrong. It's considered a little fussy to use the 'an', but it's still correct. (Sorry, Bish, but I had to.) Geogre 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I did think of asking you, but as my first point of call for dumb questions I thought I'd spread the burden out a bit.....Thanks very much for the confirmation. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree in part, though: At least in the Eastern U.S., any word beginning with a sounded "h" takes "a". Newyorkbrad 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I say and write a hypothesis and a history, but an hour and an heir. See also A, an#Discrimination between a and an. —Mets501 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're right back in the old descriptive vs. proscriptive argument. The rule is that /h/ is not a consonant. The practice and therefore growing usage is to treat it as "not a vowel and therefore as a consonant." Ultimately, the reason the rule came into force in the first place as a disambiguation, as it were. English doesn't like blending vowels between words, and so we use the nasal to provide a stop. Thus, we had "thy glory" vs. "thine arm," as well as "my bird" vs. "mine emu." The rule is exactly the same, and you're still actually correct to put the /n/, but the language is losing those rules (by analogy to the loss of nasal pronouns? as part of the same shift?), so it's debatable whether "a history" is wrong or not. Geogre 19:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"proscriptive" (thou shalt not) or "prescriptive" (thou shalt)? Per Fowler, on split infinitives, there are those who neither know nor care; those who do not know but care very much; those who know and condemn; those who know and approve; and those who know and distinguish. Let us all hope for the sensibility to fall into the last camp. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. Both are acceptable. Raul654 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If we wanted to be linguists, we'd figger out what it is about some vowel lengths that, when aspirated, need no stops. I.e. "hy" is longer and heavier than "how" or "hoi," and therefore "hypothesis" and "hyperbole" and "hyperborean" all feel like they need no nasal stop before them, where as "howl" feels like it does. If the u is really yu ("hubris"), we feel like it's heavy, too. However, I traded in my linguist badge for a crossing guard sash years ago, so I'm not qualified by temperament or training. Geogre 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'ard 'earted 'ercules 'it his 'orse over its 'ed with an 'ammer cause it to give an 'orrible 'owl. So for a cockney everyfink beginnin wiv H 'as an an. ie. maybe your suggestion re. vowel lengths is only going to work with received pronunciation --Mcginnly | Natter 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm at all qualified to judge this, but the obvious rule seems to be that "a" goes with "h" that is pronounced ("hhhh"), and "an" goes with "h" that is silent. An honour, an hour, a hotel, a horror. Counterexamples, please? Kosebamse 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To tell the truth, each of those. The thing is that we're at the point of discarding an ancient rule in English. Some people, like me, preserve it in written English (but not in spoken English) because I regard it as best to be conservative in writing. (In other words, some hypercorrectives will be offended if "an" isn't used, so I avoid being "wrong" to them. Additionally, I cannot be sure how the reader is going to pronounce the /h/. As Mcginnly's cockneys demonstrate, English speakers around the world treat the aspiration differently, so some will have more or less of a vocal initial sound, so "an" does them some service, while it just looks fussbudget to the people who aspirate heavily.) Since we've lost our /n/ speedbump between our pronouns, keeping it with /h/ may be gone already. Note that a good many people in speech will say "a" and anything following. The nasal is getting lost altogether. In 50-100 years, it seems like there will be no "an" at all. So, does one make a stand and fight for the /n/, or does one not? I do, but humbly. Geogre 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a strong distinction between British usage and North American usage (I have no idea about Commonwealth usage apart from Canada). In North America it is extremely rare to see "an" before a voiced "h". This has been the case for many years: I remember the issue coming up on an episode of M*A*S*H when upper class Bostonian, Charles Winchester, was revealed as an absurdly pretentious oaf for saying "an harmonica"...; that was in the mid-1970s. A further wrinkle is that of words like "homage" that may be pronounced with either a voiced or an unvoiced "h"; I've seen examples in Canadian and US texts of both "an homage" (which I would srite and say) and "a homage". Pinkville 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
With nothing better to do, I was mulling this over at the weekend and found another irregularity:- I would refer to a Royal air force engineer, but an R.A.F. engineer. - using the letter R, requiring the almost vowel-like aaar' sound, also seems to require an an. It also works for the sounded letters F (eff) L (el) M, N, S, X. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Never use "a historical" (sounds like "ahistorical"); always use A History of. El_C 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it sounds like "a hysterical". Always use "A hysteria of", as in "The Oxford Hysteria of English Poetry." Bishonen | talk 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
"Next came Pope and Dryden/ So I went underground./ Don't mess with the Mafia." Geogre 11:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada[edit]

You may be interested in the discussion about Alkalada on at User talk:Fred Bauder.--Isotope23 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


My email[edit]

Please note I have yet another new email address, the old one crashed along with the computer, so I've bought a new computer, it has a shiny curved screen to help my eyes and a key board shaped like a desert island, with keys that do amazing things - I do wish you coulds see it, I feel like I'm running a country sitting at it - I think I'll buy a new chair now to complete the image, one of those that massage while one types. I wish I had a big office with a huge window and balcony that looked out over Sydney Harbour (I bet Tony1 has one of those)or a penthouse looking over Central Park (like BoG) perhaps it would be cheaper just to have a new screen saver. I'll just have to look out of my very small window and wave at ALoan over the street; anyhow my point is if you ever need to contact me, you can through wiki-email. Love Giano 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

/me waves back. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean[edit]

But I'd be more than happy to discuss it on your or my talk page. - Taxman Talk 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm already responding to mackensen... maybe some other time. Check your e-mail, please. That may make the difference between the center and the margin more clear. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Reading some further of your posts... I'm not just disappointed, I'm amazed that you keep it up about Giano "engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at", while at the same time acknowledging that you don't know what the behavior of "those" was--and at the same time dismissing any need for my attempt to give you a sense of it. None of it of interest, then? Not my suggestion that people who actually consult the records come away muttering "I had no idea"? No concern with Kim Bruning's post above? Just Giano's "incivil" (pah!), so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other? Well, I'm past pretending to be sorry to have wasted your time; I don't think I took up a lot of it; I'm sorry to have wasted my own. I regret having expected to be read with interest. Forget it. I'm a slow writer, and I don't have any more time to spend in your "I know what they did/I don't know what they did" hamster wheel. Feel free to ignore my e-mail too. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
And accountable behavior in a transparent medium on Wikipedia (where it can be quoted ad nauseum) vs. unaccountable behavior in a "you post it and I'll ban you" medium like IRC cannot be "equivalent" from the start. And three vs. one and one vs. three isn't equivalent, either. And editor vs. admins and admins vs. editor isn't equivalent. And "tell us to stop on this IRC channel you are supposed to be entitled to, and we'll threaten you" isn't the same as "Oh, go away from my talk page, you pissant," either. No, I don't think any disinterested and rational person could see them as equivalent. Geogre 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

Nice one. Me harassing him. Hilarious. --KonstableSock 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Your question[edit]

His Serene Highness, the Grand Duke of Giano, considers the lily.

Further to your question yesterday, if you look at my exiting new page and follow the external link the lady you thougt was Mrs G, is in fact the Queen of Italy, an easy mistake! Giano 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry about the "Mrs", you know what an ignoramus I am in these matters! Bishonen | talk 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm sure "we" shall find it within "ourselves" to forgive you faux pas! Giano 12:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks very much for helping a fused and befuddled brain the other day (on Oriel College), I wish I had been in a brighter mood after my twelve hours ordeal work, but I was too keen on getting it done. Thanks.--Alf melmac 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, thank YOU for insightful !vote here! Bishzilla | grrrr! 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

If you're inclined, I'm declined[edit]

I unblocked user:Mcginnly after David Gerrard blocked him. My reasoning for such is on WP:AN/I#Sockpuppet block of Mcginnly. I have to be away, now. If you're not interested, it's fine. The user set up the sock to pursue an RFC on how much minority point of view would be necessary in the Taj Mahal article, which is going to get worked up for serious review. Given that there are some minority points of view who feel that their nationalities and religious identities are invested in denying that the Taj was created for anything other than Hindu purposes, the matter is hot. I am surprised that David Gerrard, who is no stranger to hot topics, didn't investigate. Geogre 12:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh you are never around when you are wanted! Can someone (ALoan) spring the unfortunate McGinnly from prison as he is stll blocked inspite of being unblocked by Geogre ages ago [6] Giano 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's resolved - many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a relief, although I still don't know how to unblock properly, it seems. I'm such a n00b at the blocking stuff, and, really, why else would anyone be an administrator, as one person asked. Geogre 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You did it properly, Geogre, but the redoubtable Autoblocker bit Mcginnly. To undo any autoblocks along with your standard unblocking, go here—very useful URL to keep handy somewhere—and fill in the data you have. One or two facts are enough, for instance the name of the blocker and the original blockee. Click on Submit query, and see a list. The original block should be on it. Click on that block's "Autoblock ID" link, and a self-explanatory page for unblocking will appear.
Mynde you, even if you do all that from the start, the Autoblocker may bite again later—not going into the "why", which is fuzzy to me anyway—and need to be released again. And guess what, every technical problem is ten times worse if you use AOL. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
My only regret is that I was unable to vote in the Bishzilla RFA last night. It cheered me immensely to see such a laudible candidate proferred to the community's consideration. Such a shame it crashed and burned.rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRAAAAGH! rage on zilla--Mcginnly | Natter 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the closure, per WP:IAR, informal !votes are still being cheerfully accepted in this instance. :) Newyorkbrad 01:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL! That is a classic RfA - "Oops. Zilla learning to hug little users more gently" - quick! someone add it to WP:BJAODN. Carcharoth 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:Bishzilla for live coverage of these incidents as they happened. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see that this is already on BJAODN: here. Carcharoth 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vanity? Border-line case?[edit]

I've had my eyes on something for a while, that I don't know really what to do with. It was a very obvious case of vanity writing. Two articles got deleted. Now one of the articles is recreated, and it looks much better. Whether or not the subject is notable enough for an article, I really can't say.

On svwiki, I would take it to SFFR (AfD). However, the AfD's that got the two articles in question deleted had like four people saying anything on the subject; I have difficulties in believing this is a good way of dealing with it. I am not sure if one should take actions to get the stuff deleted or not. In a way, there are things more important to take care of. OTOH, my knee jerk reaction from the clear vanity start is to remove the group of articles ASAP. I wrote some kind of recollection of it all on User:Habj/green burial stuff; you can take a look if you like (but I don't expect you to). // habj 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[/Bishzilla stares at mysterious message, starts to get crosseyed with bootless concentration.] Resident deletionist? Take a look, please? Bishzilla | grrrr! 17:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
I weighed in, there. Basically, my view is that we treat individual company presidents if they make a splash as individuals. We treat individual practitioners of an industry when they are far ahead, first, or biggest. Otherwise, we cover the industry, not some dude at some company doing it. Well written or poorly written articles are irrelevant, if the subject is inappropriate, because Wikipedia articles are page rank boosts, and therefore articles are money. Geogre 17:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Two notes[edit]

Hi Bishonen. First of all, I'd like to offer my sympathies that Bishzilla didn't pass rfa; she would've gotten my support. Second, in response to your comment on requests for arbitration, I think it was The Land who unblocked Giano. Cheers, Picaroon 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right! I still think there were more admins there, though, jockeying with The Land for first place. And El C (one of Carnildo's original three blockees) later did of those clever one-second "that block reason wasn't true" blocks of Giano. As for the uppity young monster, I think we all had a very narrow escape there. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
What you say! Bishzilla spin.gifBishzilla | grrrr! 09:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

My recollection is that there were three admins who undid the block within minutes — The Land, Geni, and Worldtraveller. I can't recall the order, though. You can see by checking the two other block logs, which have not been erased, and I'm pretty sure that I noticed before that it was the same three admins who unblocked all three blockees. Musical Linguist 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sad but I can't remeber for sure who got their first either, I know I was very grateful to all three - god what a wiki-life changing moment that was! Giano 14:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
See here for the names of the unblockers. I believe The Land was first. Newyorkbrad 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if I had had half a brain I would have turned and walked away from this site there and then. Giano 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nah. That whole dispute, while ridiculous, is far removed from what we are accomplishing here. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
what makes you so sure? Giano 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are "we accomplishing here" Giano 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, each of us must look within him or herself to answer that question. From my vantage point, the answer is supposed to be "writing an encyclopedia, educating others and ourselves, and, at the same time, having some fun and interacting with some interesting people." At the moment I can still say that that's my answer. But I can understand if it is no longer yours. Newyorkbrad 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Newyorkbrad about this. I discuss how I did this on my blog (an admittedly embarassing plug), and as a result my Wikistress was much reduced. Now if I could only deal with the other stress in my life . . . -- llywrch 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Dead right it is not my conviction, but now having seen what goes on at the higher level of the administration I cannot turn my back on it, rather like a civil rights lawyer returning to fight minor tax avoidance or royalties in the pop music industry Giano 15:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support[edit]

here... much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Recourse in the face of multiple serial bad edits?[edit]

Hi Bishonen,

A few days you visited Transcendental Meditation to disabuse me of the notion that 3RR did not apply to multiple serial bad edits that could not be considered to be "vandalism."

A new editor, BabyDweezil, has shown up recently on the "cult" pages and has been making multiple serial edits in violation of guidelines on four or five articles. Here is a recent example. He is starting to do this faster then we can revert it without 3RR'ing.

What recourse do we have? DR seems to be too slow, the articles could be in tatters by then. Thanks. Tanaats 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note for the user to stop making far-reaching changes against consensus, and will keep an eye on what happens. It's really late at night where I am, so I haven't done much research yet. Please don't keep reverting, especially not to the point where you bump up against the 3RR. I don't think there's any real hurry—I know one feels that articles are being destroyed when something like this happens, but it's all still there in the history. The main thing is to make the user aware of policy in the matter of consensus, talkpage discussions, and unilateral changes, and persuade them to abide by it. I can see that the other editors have been arguing with BabyDweezil on Talk, which is exactly the right thing to do. The next step is also exactly what you did: contact an admin. We'll have to see if further steps turn out to be needed; I hope not. Bishonen | talk 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
A distorted account by Tanaats--that was the only large deletion i made, (not "a recent example"), i've explained all my edits, and have been thanked more than once for removing some flagrant un-Wiki material inserted over time by the very POV pushing bloc of editors who are now complaining. The claim that Ive made "multiple serial edits in violation of guidelines on four or five articles" is Tanaats opinion at best and an exaggerated fabrication at worst (and its such displays of drama substituting for simple facts which i have had to deal with of late in editing these articles). Please feel free to review my edits and the discussions. BabyDweezil 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen, yes the most recent example was the most egregious. Things are escalating. Previously I was dealing with multiple one-liners or one-paragraphers a day.
Thanks for the advice. I've taken my finger off of the revert button.
Thank you for taking an interest in this. Tanaats 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Help?[edit]

Can you try and sort this out Image:DSCN0455.JPG, I must have forgotten to name it properly - it looks like someone has uploaded a peice of furniture over the top of one of my buildings. Consequently Leighton Buzzard is now adorned with a cupboard instead of a bank, which is not advantagous to the page! Thanks Giano 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not one of Philip Johnson's? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I reloaded the image as Image:LBhighSt.jpg, in the hopes that a more specific filename will prevent this from happeneng again. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Killerbaby - No to you too McGinnly it is definitly a rather nasty looking 1950s style chest of drawers. Giano 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You stay out of Philip Johnson's drawers! Geogre 02:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Question on Cibber[edit]

I asked a question on Colley's talk page a while back. Just curious if you might know anything. Cheers, dear! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry miss it. Bishonen now posted ignorant reply. Bishzilla | grrrr! 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Watch it, monster, or you'll be even sorrier. Bishonen | talk 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC).


Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the beautiful water fall, Spumoni has always wanted to be a wading bird. I seem to have misplaced Cecilia though, I think she took herself off shopping to Milano when all the troubles broke out. Giano 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ApocalypticDestroyer's's appeal[edit]

Hi, Just letting you know that I have lodged an appeal at ANI on ApocalypticDestroyer's's behalf. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


What happens?[edit]

You get switched off, and probably held in contempt of court. Let me know when you want to impersonate a canary! Giano 21:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Switched off yourself! Bishonen | talk 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
On your own head be it! Giano 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Got an ethnic haircut in mind? Bishonen | talk 21:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Tch...tch...tch......Giano 21:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

Restoration literature[edit]

Restoration literature has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

-- mattb @ 2007-02-06T06:11Z

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, I just popped over to see if you knew about poor Albion above (I seem to remember writing it for you one wet afternoon to fill in some red links on one of your pages) it now appears that even with Wetman's valued help we cannot write a proper page between us, and now poor old "Rest Lit". I'm trying my hardest to be good, kind and nice at the moment so I don't want to be the first to comment, perhaps if nodody comments it will all go away - I'm not very good with the ostrich technique either though - and all this smiling like jaws is starting to hurt my facial muscles. All very problematic, isn't it? Giano 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: What I don't understand is surely it would be quicker to just clean a page up, than keep plastering these templates everywhere Giano 08:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you need to wear a crocodile suit to clean up Albion, since you very kindly wrote it for Restoration spectacular, if you recollect. That may be the problem. I suppose I'll go see if the Copyedit Lite is warranted a little later. Inline cites for Restoration literature is a harder proposition, because Geogre don't want them, and decorating my drama section alone wouldn't be much use. I think I'll just wait for Geogrezilla to rear up out of the waves, I suggest you do the same. Mmmm, breakfast time. [/Bishzilla eats three templates and a bucket of inline citations. ] Bishzilla | grrrr! 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I think the nomination is in bad faith. If we look, we will see the same fun faces making the same fun comments as ever. Explaining to such persons again why, again, their requirements are not the FA requirements is virtually useless, and the wider audience seems to have been driven away. What's worse is that there are "inline citations" in the article, but they're parenthetical reference, and I explained on the talk page to the article why there aren't more of them. To cite every citation that is internal to one of the blue linked articles would make for 100kb of references. Geogre 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith? Hardly; I haven't been involved in any of your previous discussions on this topic. It's just that FA standards as they are currently interpreted require a good amount of inline citations, which this article doesn't yet have. I think the article is fantastic, I'm just pointing out that it needs the citations to retain its FA badge. -- mattb @ 2007-02-06T16:31Z
Perhaps you'd like to point out the part of the policy that says this? Have you read the discussion on the talk page? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit, I have only just read the recent traffic on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, and I am beginning the see the WP:POINT. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My particular favourite was It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there. qp10qp 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) --Mcginnly | Natter 17:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Cross purposes, I think - that was on Talk:Restoration literature. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have composed a poem that I think hits the right note on this one:

So much depends
upon

an adverbial
phrase,

marred by flame
wars:

citations, "where
appropriate"

I haven't yet decided on a dedicatee, but am leaning toward George.

Regarding whether the nomination was good faith, Matt has said it was, so let's assume it was. Marskell 19:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good faith or not, and I know nothing about English lit - I liked Enid Blyton as a child - and read Lady Chat as a spotty youth (vastly over-rated I never did find the very rudest bits) but, and I don't mean to be rude, but aren't poems supposed to rhyme? Giano 19:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Of course they are. But then they started teaching all this modernist rubbish. Marskell 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For further information on modernist rubbish and the like, you may want to check out another un-footnoted FA, The Cantos and Objectivist poets. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh damn--no inline cites on The Cantos. Perhaps best not to mention it or people will get ideas.
To be serious about one thing: footnotes are a form of inline citation, not synonymous with inline citation. No one on FAR says "insufficient footnotes". All systems tend toward a norm, of course, and the little numbers are it with Wiki. But the Harvard style is arguably better with some of the Lit pieces that rely only on paper sources and is still perfectly acceptable. Marskell 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If anyone even thinks about nominating The Cantos (ever) then Wikipedia deserves to die slowly and horribly, most horribly - consumed by its own ignorance! Giano 19:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, perhaps it's a good faith nomination. Still, it seems like I, at least, am being called upon to deal death and destruction upon those I have already been on record as opposing. Basically, that article used its internal links for the most part. Let's put it this way (long version, be warned), I set out to write The Dunciad. I figured that I wanted an article on every one of the dunces. I used the DNB for the biographies. The DNB used the same sources that I've used in the past. Then there were all the works of literature, which I just read. So, then we get some really out of the way stuff, like Gondibert, which fairly no one in their right mind reads. I read about .25 of it, but the very beginning is a "preface" by Hobbes talking about how much he admires it. I was at one time reading up everything I could by D'Avenant, and one of his scrofulous sons. (I was doing that because I was researching Ombre, which I was doing for Rape of the Lock, and Charles Cotton wrote The Compleat Gamester, which I read and tried to decipher.) Anyway, so there is all of that. So, the article itself says, "D'Avenant tried the epic with Gondibert, which Hobbes praised." To what would I footnote? I already have a link to D'Avenant. I had woven in...somewhere... the "prefaces" and the debate over form. I think it was in Restoration poetry. At this date, I have to try to puzzle out and manufacture notes that would be both false and useless to satisfy people who admit that they don't know the subject? I suppose anyone could see why I'm not very eager. Geogre 01:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and here's a first, or at least a first in a while: I gave a civility warning to LuciferMorgan for the rather unpleasantly personal comments at FAR. It was one of those fragmentation grenade comments, and those can wake even me from my lethargy. Geogre 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I did one myself, requesting either diffs or withdrawal of the lies. Yours was fine, Geogre, but in general I'm pissed off with the vague gesturing at "let's just get along", "let's all not say unkind things". I went specific. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Mine was made before he made new ones. He should be blocked, since he went on after a warning to two attacks. One was aimed at you -- suggesting that you're Giano's puppet/and/or a bad administrator. Had I been able to sign in today, I'd have blocked him for that one. I was specific in referring to a specific edit of his, but it's clear that he's popping his cork entirely. My problem is, as you know, that I don't believe in blocking anyone for "personal attacks," but, given the way that the FAR is sidetracked, if not derailed into "What's bugging him," that's pretty disruptive. Everyone else has tried to address other matters, but he's going out of his way to disrupt the function of the page, so that's where I will block someone, only slowly. Geogre 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Paul corrected me. In fact, his last nasty was before my warning, so at least I won't have to start blocking established people. Geogre 11:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert[edit]

here: [7] could you email me what it said? I don't speak Danish (or Swedish, sources weren't cleare on which it was or exactly what it said... something about my mother maybe?)... I may well leave it there, if it's not totally outrageous, because I almost never revert things off my pages. But I really do appreciate it, even if I revert back. All the best. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Bishzilla wins, she's had a pool going on how long it would be before you asked...! That's Danish, I believe, or just possibly Norwegian. E-mail sent. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

User:BabyDweezil has begun violating your Ban...[edit]

  • Just a friendly heads up, it appears that User:BabyDweezil has begun to violate your ban on multiple pages, and continue to remove content from article mainpages, without achieving consensus on talkpages, whilst still giving highly inappropriate remarks in edit summaries... Might want to check it out. Yours, Smee 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I would appreciate a review of my edits and a discussion which ones were inappropriate etc. In the meantime, Smee's incessant hounding of me and increasingly hostile behavior rather than discuss any of the changes I have made or respond to my reasoning is beginning to get annoying. BabyDweezil 21:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a recent deletion. Tilman is only trying to restore material that BabyDweezil had deleted earlier without discussion. Tanaats 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed the edit at length. The editors who keep restoring it have offered no evidence in favor of keeping this fringe, ad hominen attack on a scholar in a "criticism" section. I would appreciate if editors spent less time posting notices that I have been "banned" all over talk pages (for just one example, [here]) and focused on making improvements to the article, as I have. Thank you. BabyDweezil 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Russian Orthodox Church is not "fringe", nor is Prof. Alexander Dvorkin, PhD. --Tilman 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
BabyDweezil, you are continuing with your practice of deleting well-sourced material without consensus. Tanaats 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've no intention of protecting yet another page for the sake of one combative editor; on the contrary, I'm unprotecting Cult apologist now. Please see [8]. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, my log shows 15 edits that were made by BabyDweezil on Cult apologist without consensus. Do I have to worry about 3RR if I start putting the material back in? Tanaats 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you do. BD was editing unconstructively, but that still wasn't vandalism, what he was doing. Please assume good faith and try to make plans for compromise when he returns. I still hope there'll be room for it. Bishonen | talk 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

My block[edit]

A look at the discussions show the other editors are obstinately refusing to discuss the edits, stonewalling, responding to requests for comments with abuse, and are being serially uncivil. You, Bishonen, are being entirely biased and supporting the most blatant form of simple-minded POV pushing on Wikipedia by a handful of biased editors who resort to acting like crybabies and tattletales and offering exaggerated complaints, fabrications and outright lies rather than respond to requests to civilly and intelligently discuss articles. c'est la vie, see ya in a day or so. BabyDweezil 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We will start afresh when he returns today. Thanks. Tanaats 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TEH ZILLAS ARE BREEDING
[edit]

Bishzilla spin.gif
Bishzilla blink.gif
Bishzilla blink.gif
Bishzilla spin.gif
Bishzilla spin.gif
Bishzilla blink.gif
Bishzilla blink.gif
Bishzilla spin.gif
Bishzilla spin.gif
Bishzilla blink.gif

I've moved the Bishzilla "RFA" here: User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA. For some reason it ended up listed on the main RFA page, probably because it shared the naming format of a legitimate RFA. Regardless, it was causing confusion, so it's best to be clear that it's a joke and name the page accordingly. --Cyde Weys 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla is supposed to cause confusion. And panic. And massive destruction. --Ideogram 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the page was created by Bunchofgrapes, why wouldn't you move it to User:Bunchofgrapes/Bishzilla RFA or User:Bishzilla/Bishzilla RFA instead? Or perhaps its original title User:Bishzilla/Nomination. NoSeptember 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know, nor particularly care, who originally started it, as my only goal was to prevent the confusion that having it listed under RFA space was causing. If you have a better idea for a location you are more than welcome to move it as you see fit, just so long as it doesn't go back under Wikipedia: space again. --Cyde Weys 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So, you didn't know who made it, didn't investigate it, didn't know where it should go, but went ahead anyway? And you're sounding resentful of someone asking you to investigate before you act? Well, "why else would someone want to be an admin?" Geogre 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Someone who's username is obviously a pun, who so dislikes humour? Ben Aveling 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh hell, Christ! I had never realised it was a pun, why have I not seen that before....I have just seen it Cyde Weys - "Side Ways"...that's really very good..but why "side ways" Cyde? Giano 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh! - jump back in shock - Cyde! - double hop! I just came over here to see if anything intersting was happening - fancy seeing you here - have you joined - you'll have people talking about us - we can't go on meeting like this Cyde - but I do like a man with a pink signature ;-) Giano 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A man said of someone, they "are not known for any extraordinary ebullitions of wit or mirth, and it is not prudent to try it upon them." Geogre 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If only you had said before. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this conversation has been so consciousness-raising. --Cyde Weys 21:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the Germans actually, I met one sitting next to me on a plane once - this is completely true - I promise - we were on our way to Geneva, and (as one does) he asked if I was on business, and I said - yes, and then being a well brought up person, I said "and yourself?" and he said he was going to see a specialist in Switzerland because he suffered from premature ejaculation - I opened my book and read it with fervour without looking up for three hours, but to this day I wonder was he joking? Opinions invited. Giano 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's a valuable reference point, Omid Djalili the Persian comedian has said, "I'm the only Iranian comedian... Don't laugh! That's three more than Germany!" Pinkville 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he found you distracting? ;) The Rambling Man 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, he, too, was thinking of blocking, although of extraordinary ebullitions or mirth. The real question, however, is what the Expert in Geneva was like, and whether or not he's the Ceiling Cat vandal. Geogre 11:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything could possibly be more obnoxious than this section.

Except maybe stomping on Tokyo. --Ideogram 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. Run away!! Run away!!! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Help--an editor (Smee) is rampaging!! Eeek![edit]

Kindly review the most recent edits by Smee, who is on a rather hostile rampage, blindly reverting edits by disfferent editors without explanations and with false claims of "vandalism. I tend not to want to "tattle" on editors, but this is ridiculous. BabyDweezil 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And please review the recent spate of edits by said complainant above, who is going around spreading vandalism, removing text as well as sourced citations from articles, without consensus or discussion of any kind on talk pages. Seems to be a pattern... Smee 04:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, here are some new edits by BD...

  • Deleted the same ELs that he had deleted previously [9].
  • His comment in response to my protest [10].
  • Deleted the statement "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[11].
  • Another deletion [12].

* Deletion of an EL [13]. Oops, that was only a move. Tanaats 05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

About Keith Henson (I'll get to the rest later): BabyDweezil, I hope you've noticed that I'm in no hurry to label editing "vandalism" as long as it can possibly be construed as good faith. But carpet-bombing the article with {{fact}} tags as in this edit, including (for god's sake) the basic summary in the introduction, is IMO nothing less than vandalism. Please tell me what exactly in the intro you consider unreferenced, for instance. You're disrupting Keith Henson and heading for another block. As for Smeelgova, I would still advise him aginst using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries. It's a good principle. Bishonen | talk 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, have you read Keith Henson? Can yuo honestly tell me that that isn't perhaps the most extreme form of POV pushing, original research unsourced, overblown relative to importance personal essays masquerading as a biography on Wikipedia. It's so bad it's laughable, and some I'm vandalizing it by adding fact tags and removing pointless references that have nothing to do with, and source no claims in the article? BabyDweezil 08:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, thank you I will take your advice under consideration. Here is some more evidence for you : DIFF Yours, Smee 06:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Re-deletion of "This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison."[14]. Tanaats 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Defense of his prior deletion of "This was in contradiction with..." (see above).[16]. He is correct that the first few words were OR'ish, but he should have edited it rather than delete it. His consistent argument for many of his deletions is that it is not his job to fix things. Tanaats 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

I'm sorry for what I said, and got the wrong end of the stick. I still don't see why you keep sticking up for Giano, as I've found him to be incredibly obnoxious to be honest, although I jumped the gun before he got the first punch in. This stems from the Palladian FAR, which I still don't feel should've been closed (but that's another story).

Anyway, as concerns your conduct as an admin which I got the wrong stick about... after the Palladian FAR, a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends of his, and yourself was named. I'm not going to say what people emailed me, as they aired their views privately and I don't wish to lay the blame elsewhere as concerns what I said. Anyway, I browsed Giano's edit history, and there was some spat with a user called David something (Gerard possibly?) and another incident with Ideogram where you reported Ideogram's before - and well, thought, it must be correct then. And when I saw somewhere you'd unblocked Giano, I thought it must be true. I also figured that should someone annoy Giano, you'd get involved, and then they'd end up getting blocked. To be honest, I know admins can block people, but not much else. People are talking about IRC (Marskell tried explaining what it is a little, but I still haven't a clue what it is), de-sysopping (I don't know what this is, but I'm assuming it's where one would be stripped of their powers), RFA (??) and other things - I'm just a person who edits the odd article and hangs around at FAR, so I don't understand this language much. At the time, when I said what I said what I did I felt it to be true in my heart - I'd never knowingly say something false about a person, as I'm not that kind of person. I've since had time to consider what I said, and make more thorough inquiries into what I said. I feel really bad about the whole mess, and am extremely sorry for any offense or upset I may have caused you. If anyone questions your admin integrity in future based on this incident, I encourage you to email me and I'll back you up.

I'm extremely sorry the offer to accept an apology has expired, but I found the deluge of messages from various people (excluding yourself) on my page rather disturbing and frankly a little upsetting to be honest. It hurt, so my defense mechanism kicked in, and I'm sorry about that. I feel this is an issue between myself and you, and not all the other people who've left numerous messages on my page. While the situation is grave and rather serious, I don't feel they're helping the situation either. I'll admit that I'll never win a popularity contest on Wikipedia, but I thought other Wikipedians thought I was at least ok. It seems I'm not much liked though apparently, which I'm to mostly blame for really.

This isn't an attempt to lay the blame anywhere else, as I found your reply rather gracious under the circumstances. It took me by surprise really, as I'd found the incident a volatile situation from other quarters. It was commendable of you to keep level headed, and made me think twice of my previous judgment.

I wish for my apology to be seen as a sincere one, and not something that has been pressured out of me by the community. I'm not an insincere person believe it or not, and never have been. I don't wish to start now, but this apology is genuine. It comes from the bottom of my heart, and I hope you can accept it in that way. Anyway, I hope you take care, and really hope that you'll eventually find me to be a nice enough person, and not the one you may find me to be at present. Goodbye. LuciferMorgan 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, Lucifer, though not your lack of value for the work Giano does for Wikipedia. Perhaps you should do your own research in that quarter, too, and not take everything you read in hostile e-mails for gospel. Please consider that with messages from people you don't know, you also don't know their motives. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ....and so yet another Wikipedia editor bites the dust, having been drip fed poison. I visit FARC very seldom only when an article in which I have taken a long standing interest is deposited there. My sole encounters with Lucifer before the current review were on Palladian architecture's review (I wrote it - I have a right to be interested in it) [17] where Lucifer became more and more agitated and hostile in his comments. we now know why: [18] "a few Wikipedians I don't speak to emailed me and said I'm best off steering clear of Giano and friends" obviously was the cause of such comments out of the blue as this one [19] . The sad thing for whoever these mysterious people are who primed Lucifer is that he eventually went firing off at Bishonen who was the wrong target. Perhaps people like Sandy Georgia who make reproving comments like this [20] should confine themselves to addressing the root of the problem, which is those drop feeding the poison, rather than those seeking to establish, however belatedly, the truth. I hope eventually Lucifer feels able to return to the project, and when he does he is made welcome - I do though wonder how many other innocent editors minding their own business have their inboxes filled by strangers emailing unsolicited lies and venom about their own particular enemy of the day. Giano 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Bill Hicks[edit]

File:Donald saddam.jpg
Superbest friends, forever for a time!

I am available for children's parties, by the way. El_C 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there was a comedian, at least until he started the "Goatboy" nonsense. "The Gulf War is like a defense contractor's Christmas party. 'What does #44 do?' 'It says, here, that it melts them down and leaves only their fillings.' 'I got to see that.' <whoosh> <wait> 'Cool! What does #45 do?'" Geogre 13:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
We got the recipts! El_C 13:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't that a different comedian? "We know Iraq has WMD, because we've still got the receipts!" Geogre 14:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, see the bit where he immitates a US govt., saying: 'the Iraqi military has got powerful weapons' 'Well, how do you know?' 'We got the receipts.' El_C 14:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am blocked as Sockpuppet by 204.11.35.132[edit]

But the "log" does not mention it or tell me why. Is this a trick. I have no sockpuppets. Am I violating it now by writing you? Sincerely, Mattisse 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've been blocked by an IP...? That would be funny, if it wasn't distressing to you. IP's can't block anybody. User:204.11.35.132 put a {{sockpuppeteer}} template on your userpage, that's all. (It's been reverted now.) The part I don't understand is the 3RR thing you mention in your mail—has the anon messaged you? I hope things have cleared up by now. In case they haven't, I've sent you a g-mail invite to chat, so we can figger out what's happening, if anything (my guess would be nothing). IRC would work, too. Don't worry, now. You obviously can edit—you edited this page—and there's no block in your log. You're not blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Hate to butt in here, but don't you think it might be helpful to place a warning on the IP editor's talk page, since this was evidently a malicious action? - WeniWidiWiki 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I sort of don't feel like it—don't want to give the bastard a chuckle. I'm too sure that was a drive-by edit from a logged-out established user on a dynamic IP. This place depresses me sometimes. Bishonen | talk 19:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Me too. However because of how long this particular run of harassment has been going, I think it's best to document the actions of the user in case it comes up again. - WeniWidiWiki 20:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with WiniWidiWiki. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tanaats[edit]

Hi. I notice that you've helped out User:Tanaats in the past. Would you be so kind as to leave this person a note explaining that I'm not a crazy person? I've bothered them while following up an OTRS complaint at International Cultic Studies Association. Jkelly 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jkelly, not only did you never identify yourself as an admin (although I knew it after you protected the page) but you never explained about the complaint. You only said that "someone complained", and that still before identifying yourself as an admin. It is not very compelling if just-another-editor says that "someone complained" as a reason for deleting well-sourced material.
Then you dropped that argument entirely, meaning to me that it wasn't a strong argument to begin with. You completely switched to the argument that for some reason we should not use the ICSA's own website as a reliable source for a list of who their staff was. The whole thing was incomprehensible to me.
Admittedly I have a short fuse about the unilateral deletion of well-sourced after the predations of an editor on Cult and Cult apologist. But I really do need a head slap and an explanation about how your conduct was completely proper. Then, as I said before, I will apologize profusely and walk away chastened. Tanaats 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I screw up?[edit]

Hi Bishonen,

So did I screw up?

Thanks. Tanaats 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see also here. I have two admins telling me that Jkelly's actions were proper. I must be crazy. I really don't see why Jkelley's actions were any better than that editor that you've had to block twice. If you can help me to see where I'm going wrong here I'd much appreciate it. Thanks much. Tanaats 01:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finally replied on ANI, Tanaats. Bishonen | talk 03:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you[edit]

My grateful thanks for your assistance with Jack Sheppard, which is now a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Blast from the past[edit]

Bish, I was just browsing through some stuff from LONG AGO and found this. I thought you might get a kick out of it. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, nostalgia, Dante. For a while, I was in sole possession of CheeseDreams' password, how about that? I never dared use it, though, and it was burning a hole in my pocket, so I quickly passed it on to JRM, who changed it. He's in sole possession now—well, he's probably munged it, I expect. I didn't want to become an admin, indeed. I was enjoying the solicitations too much...! Happy days. :-D Bishonen | talk 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Night Bishonen, Night Geogre, Night mcGinnly, Night Paul etc etc..
Night Giacomo. Bishonen.


Battleship[edit]

Hello, hope things are well - long time no speak because I've .. well... not been around. Anyway, I happened upon you finding the OED definition of battleship here and mentioning that it wasn't quite complete. Any chance you could fill in any subtleties lose by your cut-and-paste from the other year? And do you know what the correct way to cite the OED is? Many thanks.... The Land 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, The! OMG, that's what you do when you let your hair down—read Geogre's archives? I'm afraid I can't get at the OED right now, because teh intarweb asplode. (Is it possible I hang around on IRC too much?) I mean, my uni proxy has been laid low by a virus. :-( I wonder if I can still see how to cite it, hmm... yes, check it out. Those are the instructions, but apparently you also get a full cite provided with each entry you look up. Hopefully I'll be able to do that in a few days' time. Do please remind me if I forget. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Indeed, I'm clearly bored and lonely ;) ... hope your internet connecito nhasn't got bird flu. Many thanks for your help. The Land 21:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletions on New religious movement[edit]

Hi Bishonen,

May I please have your opinion on this activity on New religious movement?

  • Declaration of intention to unilaterally remove material without consensus.[21]
  • About 20 minutes later, the deletion was performed.[22]
  • New deletion of same material without consensus.[24]

Thanks. Tanaats 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Deletion of a sourced statement without consensus.[25] Tanaats 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement of reason for insisting on unilateral deletion.[26] Tanaats 01:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Tanaats: I'm really sorry, I've just been too busy, too many emergencies have been popping up, on-wiki and IRL. I've now asked an uninvolved admin to step up to the plate on this instead of me. You should be seeing or hearing from him round about 5 PM EST or so. Bishonen | talk 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Hey, no problem. This is turning into a long-term situation and patience is required. :) Thanks for your earlier participation and I look forward to hearing the opinions of the other admin. Tanaats 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the update[edit]

Hey Bish!! I know, haven't talk to you for so long. Apparently, David Levy is forcing me with a block to remove the joke banner. thoughts?--Certified.Gangsta 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

I feel a little ridiculous warning you about 3RR vio, David, but are you aware that you've gone right up against the limit on Certified.gangsta's userpage? Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The reversion of vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. —David Levy 03:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right there behind you Bishonen... plus the improper block. (Netscott) 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, Scott. David, you're mistaken about the application of that exemption. The reversion of something you've unilaterally and disputably decided you regard as vandalism is not exempt from the 3RR. ("Disputably", obviously,since it's being disputed all over ANI at this moment.) By no means. This is what is exempt according to the 3RR policy:
"Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking (this only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism. For other vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)"
See how it doesn't fit? Italics in the original. Bishonen | talk 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Again, I don't understand why people are citing discussion that occurred after the fact as though it already had occurred. At that time, there was overwhelming consensus that these messages were harmful. So yes, I viewed the deliberate restoration of such a banner as something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism. I'm sure that the user felt that his/her joke was funny and didn't seek to upset people, but someone adding nonsense to an article might feel the same way. The user was well aware of the fact that the banner's insertion was regarded as disruptive and barred via a guideline, and he/she chose to ignore these facts (as well as my warning, which he/she removed from his/her talk page).
Whether I was right or wrong, I honestly perceived this as a clear-cut case of deliberate disruption. —David Levy 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I honesty perceive this as a clear-cut abuse of administrative priviledges and deliberate userspace harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 09:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the words of the 3RR policy, I don't see that they leave much room for deciding that something—a joke banner—quite different from the examples they give of simple and obvious vandalism is "something tantamount to simple and obvious vandalism". On the same principle, even if you feel you have such strong consensus for a recently introduced "rule" that it's safe to dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side, it wouldn't have hurt you any to try to understand where they were coming from—to listen rather than dismiss out of hand, to engage rather than assume that anybody with different opinions had to be out to harm the encyclopedia. If you'd taken opposing arguments into account, I don't think it would have been that hard to figure out what kind of reaction an actual block was likely to get on ANI. I'm saying this because from the way you responded to me, I didn't get any kind of feeling of being heard or listened to.) Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
1. I don't believe that the mere use of the joke banner constituted anything tantamount to simple vandalism. I believe that the repeated deliberate guideline violations (mostly via edits with no summaries, some of which were labeled "minor") and removal of a warning message did.
2. Again, I didn't "dismiss all pleas and arguments on the other side." Almost all of them arose after the fact. I have listened to them and repeatedly apologized for acting in a manner met with controversy (which obviously wasn't my intent). —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On the matter in hand, looking at timestamps, it seems to me you had received a good deal of input by the time you reached my page—enough to give you pause before imperiously dismissing my 3RR concern. To introduce a note of doubt or self-reflexion, even. An acknowledgment of the possibility that I meant well and might have a point. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I haven't dismissed your concerns. I simply disagree with you on this point. Not for a moment have I questioned your motives. —David Levy 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

I am having troubles with User:Piotrus on my talk page, with his insistence on keeping a warning - you stated in the past the this is not warranted. BTW, this user is up for a RfC presently. Thank you. Rarelibra 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a note to Piotrus. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The user has failed to show me any diff that s/he has been warned about unsing obscenities in the future, so I feel my warning was current and correct. The next time that user uses obscenities we now have a ground for blocking (hopefully that will teach that person to behave in a civil manner instead). I don't care that much if s/he removes the warnings, it only reflects bad upon that person ability to deal with criticism. What I object to is blanking current debates, which makes it more difficult to continue meaningful discussion. However I consider the discussion closed (the user was warned, and failed to present any coherent argument in his/her defence).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you are quite capable of doing the research as to being warned previously. All you seem to be doing is going on some kind of march to attempt to get me blocked. It won't work. You should be, instead, concentrating on the current RfC that you are the topic of for your various behaviours in the past (and present). Like the pot calling the kettle black. It wasn't a debate, mind you - it wasn't a blanking. It was acknowledgement without response, period. Next time use discretion before you go off on some tirade. Serious. Be very careful on your actions. Thank you. Rarelibra 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - I don't mean to bother you. I really appreciate your assistance. The problem I have with User:Pmanderson is that he cannot remain respectful whenever he dislikes someone. If you look at this diff HERE, you'll see that he insinuates that I want to "lie to the reader". There was nowhere at all in my comments on this discussion a proposal to lie. In fact, my whole point was that we need to use the diatrics when using names (and redirect from non-diatric names) - a process that the workplace I am involved with does on a daily basis due to an international scope of work. I was also stating that a direct English translation of the name "Stanisław" is "Stanley" (like "Mark" from "Marek"). Yet user Pmanderson seems to be able to twist my words and attempt to slander me. This is what I wish to have stopped. I do not do the same with him, I expect the same respect in return. That is all. Rarelibra 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your banner[edit]

I'm going to start revert warring with you, and then I'm going to block you. Oh, maybe I'd better not. Bishzilla might eat me. Musical Linguist 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I keep her around for. And I hope you realize you could have been spending the time it took to block me improving the encyclopedia instead ? Bishonen | talk 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Are you implying that blocking you wouldn't be improving the encyclopaedia? Musical Linguist 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Block weenie Bishonen, great improvement! Look, is Muzzy lady! Oh, Muzzy, Muzzy... ! Bishzilla | grrrr! 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

:-) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nice banner, I'm stealing it.--Certified.Gangsta 09:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


You stage, get off the suck![edit]

Don't think I won't do it! El_C 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh hunn--ee..! Bishonen | talk 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
You've even orange-ized my own words. The sheer tenacity, audacity, insolence, intransigence, et cetera! El_C 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree. Shouldn't El C be red not orange? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd love one thanks![edit]

Where do I sign up for the Swedish massage? (Netscott) 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, on a slightly more serious note: would you take a look at this ANI post? Thanks. (Netscott) 19:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! Something useful did come out of all of that. I created Template:View right which is good to be able to go and just view a transcluded bit of a page. Click on the right and you'll see what I mean: (Netscott) 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bork bork bork[edit]

I'm glad to hear that there are Jansonnists, because I was afraid that they were Jansenists 150 years after the suppression. Geogre 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Janssonists, yep. Followers of Eric Jansson of Hälsingland. 1,500 of 'em—more than many a prophet! My redlink for Jansson isn't the only one; check out Bishop Hill, Illinois, which has a good short History section. ALoan, you're interested in writing stubs about Swedish pietists, aren't you? Big following! Colorful guy! "After repeated brushes with the law and with outraged local opinion, Eric Jansson departed for America in 1846, condemning his homeland to eternal damnation." (H. A Barton, A Folk Divided, 16).
Bishonen | talk 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
I a guessing that you don't mean one of the three members of the Swedish cycling time trial team, who won the bronze medal in the at the 1928 Summer Olympics, do you? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
He did that too? Wow, versatile! Bishonen | talk 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Ahem. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, the link is blue! :-) I've owled it a little. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Interesting chappie - his resurrection was clearly somewhat delayed, if he only popped up for the 1928 Olympics. Almost as interesting as Carlo Gatti. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Oxon Dict. Christian Church doesn't register him, I'm afraid, so I'm powerless without going to the liberry to find more information. Speaking of people going off to Lethe's burbling stream, Bish has gone quiet lately. Geogre 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Lethe? Not at all, I was reading books. (By Virginia Woolf, yet. When I read books, I read books.) Er, so, did you look at the issues under "Deletions on New Religious Movements" above, and "Nonstop personal attacks??" below, like we talked about..? If they got overwhelmed by other concerns, don't worry. I've got time to deal with it now, and have warned the user. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
My wife, Mathra, and I are both afraid of Virginia Woolf. Not Woolf's books, but Woolf herself. Rocks in the pocket and all. Geogre and Mathra, we're called, and we just love to invite new people over for dinner. Geogre 12:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Alas, but my tangle with salmonella-infected peanut butter (first time in history), overwhelmed all else. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Did anyone see this? There's a poll on IRC snuck in at the end. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Great. If "no IRC" pulls ahead, we'll hear how "polls are evil," and if "IRC is useful" pulls ahead, we'll hear how it's an integral part of Wikipedia. In other words, it's zero sum, no matter what. Geogre 02:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Houston do you read me?[edit]

"Stockholm, we've Had a Problem !". I think you are not penetrating the intergalactic airwaves, try and come through from the other side. Giano 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonstop personal attacks??[edit]

  1. Administrator's notice board, very inappropriate attacks on multiple editors
  2. Inappropriate response to warnings ABOUT personal attacks on his talk page

Thanks for your time. Smee 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe in blocking for personal attacks. But when they rise to disruption and to a general poisoning of the climate on talkpages, it becomes something else. Did you see me warn him on his page?[27] Meanwhile, I wish you'd stop planting templates on him. It's frowned on to use the warning templates in that way. If you feel a need to warn or reproach him (personally, I wouldn't bother any more, if I were you), then please use regular human speech. And try to chill out, Smee. It looks a lot like BabyD is trying to get you aggravated (remember, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "I have to pretend I'm stupid"). Don't give him the pleasure. Bishonen | talk 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
It would be nice if at least one admin would judge my edits on their merits, instead of incessant speculations that I'm seeking some sort of thrill or persecuting anyone. I challenge you or any admin to conclude that less than 95% of my edits are well grounded. I explain the reasons, yet I am faced with obstinate, POV-minded editors who act as a bloc to filibuster and delay even the simplest, most obvious improvements to the articles. BabyDweezil 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand my role in this context. I purposely don't get into your content disputes. If I did, I would cease to be the right person to adjudicate behavior—to "admin" the articles, as Tanaats puts it. Incidentally, for somebody who incessantly accuses Smeelgova of "stalking", it's a little curious how you pop up on every page where I allude to something you're interested in, and make some perky comment. [28] That's classic stalking. On another note, may I ask why you're so careless of the BabyDweezil account? From comments on your talk, you don't seem to care if it gets blocked, and you seem quite uninterested when I tell you that you're headed for a community ban or for arbitration.[29] Is BabyDweezil a disposable identity? Bishonen | talk 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
Maybe you could consider switching roles and take a shot at evaluating content (rather than, as you chose to do on the noticeboard, my mental health, since what appears as "behavior" cannot be judged with the least bit of accuracy in the absence of context. If you don't wish to, why not ask another admin to evaluate content? Seems lots of admins have opinions on behaviors, which they're all too happy to proffer at the drop of a hat, wam bam thank you mam. Looking down from WikiOlympus and pointing fingers is easy. As to my classic [30] stalking, since its obvious that some of you have taken it upon yourselves to not only complain incessantly about me, but to investimigate me (lotsa luck with that, and really, cc me the results) I like to keep informed about what's up if it concerns my account. Hate to be the last one to find out, y'know! BabyDweezil 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't noticed that plenty of admins are criticizing your way of adding (or, more commonly, deleting) content? See, again, the ANI discussion. And ChrisO. I don't quite see what your interest is in having me do it too. I won't be so crass as to suggest you would like it if I stopped "adminning" the articles you care about. My rhetorical mention of "projection" amounts to "evaluating your mental health" and playing the wikishrink, does it? You know, of all your witticisms, that bit actually makes me smile. (Slightly. From Olympus.) Bishonen | talk 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
No content means content, not childish complaints about how one edits content. There has been zero ADULT discussion on actual content, rather than the rules ofthe playground. And as I pointed out, ChrisO has a HUUUUUGE (big even) conflict of interest on Scientology related articles. It's like having Karl Rove jump in and admin the Dick Cheney article. BabyDweezil 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Formulating joke "new message" guidelines[edit]

Hello Bishonen, I invite you to join the discussion on crafting initial guidelines for the joke "new message" banners. Thanks. (Netscott) 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What should we do[edit]

Hi,

I'm gathering proofs against User:Patchouli.User:Sa.vakilian/AFC1 How can we banned him forever?--Sa.vakilian 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi.The thing to do in my opinion is propose a community ban on WP:ANI. (Compare my recent post there.) Link prominently to the previous thread and the reactions that people registered there. Give the new post a heading that clearly states what it's about, and that makes it easy to notice for people who have an interest in the user—say "Community ban proposed against Patchouli" or something like that. See, LittleDan already said he thought a ban was appropriate, and I actually proposed a community ban, but the heading didn't say anything about a ban, so probably few people noticed it. You need to make your post easy to read and the points you make easy to grasp. Your evidence is good, but frankly, you have too much of it! (It'll be very useful if this is taken to arbitration, as seems pretty likely.) Only use the best of your links, and explain what you think they prove. Mention that LittleDan and others already suggested a ban. Me, I was just talking—I don't have any experience of the user—but LittleDan is important, so you might want to ask him to post his views directly after your proposal. Preferably a little more fully than he did before.
Advice for getting people interested in the issue:
  • Be fair, mention if the user has some good points, or if there are any excuses for the way he behaves. Make it clear what you're proposing, but ask the readers for input and their views, rather than say "You have to ban him."
  • Be brief. Agha Nader's original post in the previous thread is a good length, and is a good pattern for you altogether (except the header, which is unhelpful), with striking examples. Yours can be shorter, since you have a recent discussion to refer to.
  • Don't talk about the various policies he's breaking. Administrators know what these policies are, and listing them only sounds formalistic. Instead go directly to what he's specifically done, and the amount of problems he causes.
Who should propose it? Absolutely not me, I'm ignorant. Not somebody who has edit warred a lot with Patchouli, or is any kind of extremist on the opposite side from him. Somebody knowledgeable. It sounds (from your evidence collection) like you would be a good person. So would Agha Nader, or LittleDan. It's not really important, the information and the way it's presented matters more than who it is. Finally, if there's not consensus for a community ban, I advise you to first have somebody previously uninvolved make a good-faith effort to reach out to the user, and then (assuming that fails, as seems only too likely) go directly to requesting arbitration. From the links already posted, I don't see the sense in wearing out everybody with formal mediation and/or an RFC which would only turn into a flameout anyway. Requesting arbitration isn't hard. Good luck, Bishonen | talk 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
What's your idea about making an entry in Wikipedia:Community noticeboard and redirect it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical analysis via bulldozer and cow catcher[edit]

I had to make a few changes to Venice Preserv'd. Because I don't "OWN" articles, I've been very laid back about things. It seems that someone wrote a paper on the play and had to insert its conclusions. I can so sense someone having a class read it with New Criticism and a sheaf of feminist perspectives. Anyway, if you look at the diff between my last and the previous version, you can see the stuff I cut. If there are legitimate points that I'm chopping off that can be made more appropriately, please feel free to put them in in a better way.

For my part, I'm not going to allow the idea that this is a misogynistic play to stand. My own view is that all the principals are in an ethical bind. None of these survive, because our society has changed to get rid of things like "honor," but ... oh, just see the diff. Geogre 11:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks[edit]

Hej Bish - just wanted to say a very belated thanks for this. Hope you didn't feel too deceived that the anon was me, editing incognito. And thanks for your note on my talk page the other day as well. Hope you've been well! Worldtraveller 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I'd forgotten about that, World. Not deceived at all, it was a good thing to do. Admins should do the Harun al-Rashid/Günter Walraff/anon IP routine more often. Good heavens, Walraff is a redlink! I can't believe it. OK, make that the Barbara Ehrenreich routine. I was sorry to be such a lone voice on ANI this time round. :-( I'm as baffled as you are at the idea of calling criticism of admin actions a personal attack. Bishonen | talk 15:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Suggest to try Günther Wallraff, if it might please you, Most Noble Born Bishonen. Humbly, Swedophile 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Wow, a resurrection from 2004? Innaresting. I like the way you talk, Swedophile... very courteous, not to say courtly... hmmm, how about addressing me as "My Tallest", though ? I rather fancy that. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

User:WackadooXanadu[edit]

Could you please remove the reference of me "hating [his] guts" on his userpage. I removed it once because I took it as an insult for someone to judge my feeling towards them, which are not true by the way. Thanks! — Moe 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I don't even care about the thread above that because it's my exact suspicions, but to make false claims is another. — Moe 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Gone. Now how about that Swedish massage? Bishonen | talk 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
LOL, did you get that massage, last chance from my talk page whenever I had it? I guess to be original you had to make it Swedish, huh? ;) — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a trap, don't fall for it. You get squished instead. Its like a horror movie. Its like... dead zombie chickens marching across your userpage! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you *click for massage* ...Ahh! Should have listened to the Killer Chihuahua :/ — Moe 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Some idiot just blocked me[edit]

Avenge me, boys. AVENGE MEEE!! (I'm still boycotting this page, btw. This is just inhumanitarian aid) El_C 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've blocked the jerk! Bishonen | talk 03:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I deserved that. El_C 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Admins get to have all the fun. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no, you can be blocked, too! Bishonen | talk 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Community ban[edit]

Can I put massages on talk page of other wikipedians who know Patchuli to come there and write their idea or it's WP:CANVASSING.--Sa.vakilian 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure it out, please give me a minute and I'll respond! Bishonen | talk 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, I'm still not sure. You'd have to make sure it's a limited number of people—absolutely not more than, say, 5—7 people—and an extremely neutral message. Avoid any hint of what you'd want or expect them to say, just ask them in a very neutral way for input. The only point I feel doubt about is that it's supposed to be important to write to both people who agree with you and people who agree with your adversary. So, if Patchouli has any supporters, or people neutral on the issues, it's extremely important that you include those people. But if he doesn't, I'm honestly not sure what would be deemed acceptable. In my own opinion, though, it would hardly be reasonable to prevent you from messaging people for input in such a case. Go for it. I think it's ok, so feel free to blame me if anybody complains. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks starting up again?[edit]

  1. DIFF 1
  2. DIFF 2
  3. obvious nonsense disruption, in violation of WP:POINT
  4. 2nd time disrupting Eisenhower article
  5. (Again)

These characterizations and assumptions about other editors is highly inappropriate. This follows a pattern of inappropriate behaviour that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202. Smee 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

LOL, and Smee isn't stalking me?? BabyDweezil 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP with your violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. This has been dealt with ad nauseam already. Smee 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
Relax, man. It's annoying enough that you follow me around undoing my edits. The fact that you log and monitor all my edits and constantly "report" me, with bogus accusations of personal attacks, disruptions, "inappropriateness" the like and post my "record" everywhere you can is really, really creepy. I mean, really. BabyDweezil 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the DIFFS above speak for themselves. Your behaviour, (in addition to the very language you are using now) is inappropriate and offensive, and a disruption to Wikipedia. Many other editors and Admins have stated as such. Smee 23:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. BabyD, please don't use words like "vindictive", and don't tell people how they "feel".[31] You are not in their heads, don't discuss how they feel. Discuss their edits, not their motives. This is the essence of the WP:NPA policy. Come on, you're always citing policy, I'm sure you know this. Just stop it. Meanwhile, since neither my wimpy reproaches nor previous ANI discussions nor shorter blocks seem to have made much impression (those edits to Dwight D. Eisenhower and L. Ron Hubbard mentioned above are truly ridiculous), I'm on my way to WP:ANI to propose a month's block. Feel free to weigh in, both of you. Bishonen | talk 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Cough, splutter[edit]

See here. Musical Linguist 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Returning a favor[edit]

Since you helped me out, I noticed this List of Danish Americans while doing my usual "random article" surfing. I had seen the thing in your sandbox, and the first paragraph of this seemed to tie in, indirectly. Are other Scandinavians "disappearing" as quickly? Was there something peculiar about Danes that Swedes wouldn't have shared? Would it have to do with Danish history and its subjugation? Utgard Loki 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a Danish.
Thanks! The others aren't disappearing at all, they're burgeoning! This professor writes about the cohesiveness of Swedish-Americans, and it seems the cultural activities of the third- or fourth-generation American Swedes are becoming more Swedish. More Swedish than mine, for sure. In Minnesota, they apparently revel in (fake) immemorial Swedish customs like Sankta Lucia, the kräftskiva, the going bork bork bork. All pretty much invented out of whole cloth in the late 19th century—customs the first-generation emigrants had never heard of. People are funny, aren't they? As for the Danes integrating better and disappearing more, I guess that's to do with less religious persecution in the Old Country, so a less embattled type of immigrant. Something like that. Have a Danish. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

If you could spare the time -[edit]

- would you mind glancing over my little essay? I would appreciate your opinion very much. Comments welcome at the talk page. Best regards (and my compliments to foo-zilla should you happen to meet him/her/it), Kosebamse 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oooooh, Wikipedia will get you for saying that! Geogre 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

bishonen diacritic[edit]

Hi. All good-natured fun on AN/I aside, is there any reason that you don't have the diacritic in "bishonen" on your user page? I was going to change it but then figured that it might be intentional for legacy compatibility? Later. --Justanother 03:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant as the primary spelling so it bypasses the redirect. --Justanother 03:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Lëgäcy cömpætæbility? Primäry? I don't understand what you're talking about, sorry. Please don't make changes to my userpage. I wasn't trying to be funny on ANI. If I had been, I would have mentioned your laughable 3RR repørt of Smëë. Bischånen 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
"In Ankh Morpork, we do not hold with any letters with dots over them that might fall over and cause accidental punctuation." -- or something like that. Geogre 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Lancre, I believe - "But Lancre people had never got the hang of accents and certainly didn't agree with trying to balance two dots on another letter, where they'd only roll off and cause unnecessary punctuation." (see Überwald). Ankh-Morpork people "considered that spelling was sort of an optional extra. They believed in it in the same way that they believed in punctuation; it didn't matter where you put it, so long as it was there."[32] -- ÄŁøάñ (τâĺж) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not say "funny". I said "fun". I hope that you are having fun. That is kinda the whole idea here, isn't it? When you click on the wiki-link for "bishonen" on your user page, it goes to redirect and I was wondering if you would not like that changed. No big deal. Since when is it "laughable" to report an edit-warrior for 4RR after repeated warnings ( wanna see the warnings?) Nice ASCII work. --Justanother 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not ASCII work, it's the natural behavior of my not-so-anglophone keyboard. I just usually keep it on a short leash. It's laughable since the time you daintily picked out Smeelgova's limited reverts from the surrounding ocean of reverts by BabyD.[33] and reported Smeelgova. I especially liked your subsequent call on ANI for editors and admins to make a better effort to see that all are treated fairly. You must have had fun writing that. BTW, sorry you feel muzzled by me pointing out that you had written half the thread, posted eight times, and were boring readers silly. Those are just facts, you know. Not like saying I'm "railroading", for example. I wonder what my interest in getting BD blocked is supposed to be. When I say I wonder, I mean I'm wondering inside my head. It's not a request for more rhetoric. (OMG censorship again.) Bishonen | talk 14:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
OK, no rhetoric. You have your perceptions and your opinions and your motives and I have mine. At most times, I imagine, they probably and happily coincide (not to imply that you or I particularly care about that). Obviously, they do not here. I really was curious about the diacritic. Don't worry about the censorship on AN/I. I have already made my points and if there is something else I need to say you can rest assured that I will say it despite (what I take as) any veiled threats of sanction for "disrupting ANI". --Justanother 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor FYI[edit]

  • Since BD deleted my reply from his talk-page, which he has every right to do, here it is:
Per Bishonen's sage advice: Smee, please try not to rise to every bait. Therefore, I will not. Smee 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


A belated thank for your comments in the arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba 2[edit]

I am frustrated that the arbcom has not answered a request for clarification since Sept 2006. An unanswered question regarding extrnal linking in the case of Robert Priddy triggered an edit war that led to this second arbcom case. It seems that the arbcom prefers to ban contributors who ask difficult questions to them, instead of answering the questions. Andries 08:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you are interested User_talk:Charles_Matthews#Banning_an_editor_from_an_article_whose_edits_are_described_as_responsible. Andries 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen,[edit]

And I'm very pleased to meet you! - Sorry to beg some of your time, but I've come to you to ask for some advice. I have what i consider serious concerns about essjay's conduct, and am upset with the way my concerns are being handled.

Brief rundown is that essjay lied on his userpage for ages about his qualifications - claiming to be a tenured professor, and hold the following degrees;

  • Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
  • Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
  • Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
  • Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

I understand that some see this as no big deal (but it is a big deal to me). What i thought was far more serious was that he repeated these lies to the New Yorker, and allowed a story to be published [34] which I feel directly bolsters wiki's reputation based on his fictional qualifications. I'm really concerned that without recognising this behaviour as a mistake at some point this could do serious damage to wikipedia's reputation, essjay being such a high powered user - this level of dishonesty is just plain wrong.

He has justified what he refers to as disinformation here [35] - and basically repeated this justification when I raised it on his talk page here [36] - leaving aside the fact that I think essjay is needlessly mentioning stalking, police matters and harrasment (how could wiki suddenly be so safe now?), I don't feel that he's responded at all appropriately to the issues. He's made it clear now he doesn't want to talk about it... [37]

I don't like the idea of someone who thinks this is not important having so much power. As you can see, I've become quite involved in this issue - perhaps I see it as so serious because I'm up so close - if it's no big deal, then I should let it lie, but I feel sure there's a seed of something quite important. I've sent you an email too..... Purples 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Purples. I'll take a look and talk with some people and get back to you. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 13:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
I have my usual overly-complicated view, which I've e-mailed you, Bish. Geogre 15:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's funny - I have a theory too Giano 15:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm on three sides of the fence. Geogre 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (Beat that!)
Oh Geogre - it is far better to tunnel underneath the fence - who knows what one finds when one starts digging! Giano 15:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (et tu)
On an entirely unrelated matter (and I mean that sincerely; this is not code or insinuation), I have created a new award on my talk page. Geogre 18:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm feeling cold and shivery, very cold, we have a superstition in deepest Sicily, never let your name be carved on a stone before the appointed time. Oh hell it has my name - I can feel a sore throat coming on - you must all pray for my repose. Giano 18:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That headstone doesn't have your name on it, unless the "Giano Affair" was about Giano, which it wasn't. Everyone knows that. Geogre 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh but do they? Poor dear Jimbo is there too - I just don't like it - we are doomed. Giano 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pass the doilies, please[edit]

Hi. I can use a bit of advice here, please. Do you think that this bit by User:Antaeus Feldspar constitutes disruption or abuse of a noticeboard worth bringing up on AN/I. I really do not want to be "dainty" here (more on that in a sec). I have a pretty thick skin and am very used to being attacked on the Scientology Series talk pages. I really don't mind it much as it gives me the rare opportunity to crack extremely wise and that is not something I do in real life or in other areas here. Lately, though, this crap has been spilling over onto admin noticeboards. There was my dainty 5RR with Smee and Tanaats try there (which he, to his credit, had the good sense to remove after I asked him to), then Orsini and Anteaus on your AN/I on BD, and now this one. Those are the recent ones. Basically, it is taking a noticeboard case and turning it into "get Justanother" on the hope that some admin will buy into their "stuff". This type of activity is off-topic anywhere (if they have a case let them just bring it) but seems especially egregious on the noticeboards. I mean, does Antaeus really think an editor/admin is going to want to jump into that to figure out and answer whatever on-point question is in there? I already figured out (finally) what his argument was and responded to it. I really wish these guys would stop it already and that is my only desired outcome. As regards "dainty". Yes, sure. But I think BD was already well "under control" and Smee was running over my valid edits at the same time in his edit-warring. Smee has said that he will make the necessary adjustments to his editing style and I have made efforts to patch things up between he and I. Thanks for your input on this Antaeus thing, I respect it. --Justanother 16:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG. I've read through the BLP noticeboard thread once and am none the wiser. Frankly I'm stupider. Antaeus Feldspar's posts are rather long and complicated; yours are dreadfully long and complicated. You'll have to apply your own unaided judgement as to whether to take it to ANI, because I can't even tell what's going on. But if you do, consider this: I react with incomprehension and frustration. So does William Thweatt [38]. That's two out of two. There are currently no other comments. What kind of response do you think you'll get if you write like that on ANI, where the competition for admins' attention is so fierce? People are put off by long paragraphs, so please be brief; people don't know the background, so please explain it. These two suggestions are admittedly in dynamic tension with each other. But still. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
Yes, thanks for the advice. And I do apologize for sticking your nose in that. Though I do object (in good-natured manner) to your claiming that I was more long-winded than Antaeus. I broke out the calculator and, prior to Mr. Thweatt, Antaeus was at 56.3% and me at a "mere" 43.7%, but there were just the two of us (smile). And I certainly hope I was more entertaining (but maybe not). My problem is that I have been attacked since I got here in August 2006, just because I am a Scientologist and, while it has been an educational experience and "trial by fire", I am pretty much done now with being attacked, especially as it is seeping over to the notice boards and I imagine that I will be using them to actually get some help from experienced editors like Mr. Thweatt (and yourself) and I am tired of the character assassination employed against me (such as Orsini's that I am a troll and an OSA stooge). If I do decide to pursue it I will be sure to give my sardonic rhetoric a rest. Which I am quite capable of doing. --Justanother 20:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I did the best I could and posted it to AN/I. Your comments, of course, are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dang, despite my best efforts some rhetoric crept in to my posting on AN/I but I have removed it. "Old habits die hard." --Justanother 13:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Coding[edit]

Just as you've done it. With the refs spelled out, it's a cinch. Marskell 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You've merged my notes, I see. No big deal, but I thought those sentences deserved separate citing, as the theatre company history is quite esoteric knowledge. The details about the "adventurers" and about the actors' cooperative are only available in Milhous' book as far as I know, and are on a whole different level from the surrounding paragraph about how the 1690s drama was different from the 1670s, which is 100% known and assented to by everybody who's written on the drama in the past 400 years, and doesn't deserve any citing at all. Milhous lays out two separate things, though connected: the early-robber-baron-raw-capitalism that gutted the company (pp. 37—43), and the (unique, startling) reaction of the actors, who fought back by setting up their own cooperative and revitalizing London theatre life (51—68). Bishonen | talk 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
To come down on the other side of our long debate, I was worried two separate cites in adjoining sentences might encourage the [citation needed] every two lines problem. While I do ask for sources at times, I'm certainly not in that camp. What about summation in the cite, briefly detailing what you've just said above and pointing to the page numbers? Marskell 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done so. Marskell 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for your thoughts at User talk:Kosebamse/Wikipedia is not a sentient being; a little further discussion is on that page. Always delighted to hear from you, Kosebamse 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

here we go....[edit]

i think the ethics stuff is beginning to get noticed.... [39] - I gather the New Yorker has also published a correction (it's quoted in that blog..). The fact that essjay was to some degree representing wikpedia when talking to the New Yorker is what causes the damage..... just thought i'd let you know... Purples 00:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And isn't this the same user who was just appointed to ArbCom by the direct order of Jimbo skipping a step of obtaining community's feedback on that while users who passed the voting with >70% threshold were readily available? Where is this all going? --Irpen 01:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Come on, Irpen, please hold the rhetorical questions—what good do you think they're going to do?) Very interesting, Purples. It certainly vindicates you, though I don't suppose it makes you happy. :-( Anyway, I hope the users who piled on you for "trolling" feel at least slightly foolish, when or if they see that article. Bishonen | talk 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually I understand where they're coming from - they respect essjay enormously, and want to help 'defend' him - that's cool, just a little misguided. All i really want to do is engage the chap at the centre of it all. Purples 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a project filled with paper dolls. These paper dolls ... people can think either that they represent a person or that they are paper dolls in their own right. It bugs me when anyone tries to embue his or her creature with aspects of a real person. I do not want to have this one say that it has rights and abilities because the person manipulating it has gotten a Ph.D. in web comics, and I do not want to have that one say that it has extra powers because the person manipulating it was a lawyer or judge. Any time that happens, I think the fundamental basis of Wikipedia is being broken. We're either anonymous editors, or we are not, and I loathe the idea of trying to have it both ways. When a person not only tries to make the fiction of the person on Wikipedia refer to the human fictionalizer, but also lets the paper doll step out of the book and equal the person, I'm doubly irritated.
It's easy for me to ignore LordViperScropion's claims to being Brad Pitt. However, when he tries to say that Brad Pitt has the qualities of the avatar and the avatar the qualities of the actor, it's a special kind of offense. If Essjay said he were the Pope, I'd say that means nothing, because all the identities here are presumed to be fiction, but if he says he's the Pope and therefore is the leader of all Catholics who edit Wikipedia, he's being a jerk. If he then goes on to a real world interview as the Pope, it's probably at the level of fraud, at least intellectual fraud.
There is no way to explain to the folks of The New Yorker how the fictions of Wikipedia appeal to those carrying particularly large social wounds, how the most lofty personalities as personalities are often those whose frustrations at reality are greatest, how the least spectacular personalities are often those who really have accomplishments. Geogre 11:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought i'd copy below a message that i received (hope that's not considered rude...) because Geogre and Ancheta seem to me to have the deepest understanding of the bigger wiki issues, and I thank you both for your insights....

It's all kicking off at Jimbo's talk page now, so I think I'll take a step back. I do think it's a shame that essjay didn't just take the opportunity to put a little correction on the record.... ho hum....

Purples 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What worries me is that these are not creatures who deceive to survive, but rather that there is a deception (the electronic self) that is particularly attractive to those who have the greatest deficit in their feelings. I don't want to care about the Wound and the Bow, as it were, don't want to care about this, either way, because only the product matters. If a forger makes a Da Vinci, I'm ok with owning it, so long as I don't pass it off as a Da Vinci: it has all the pleasures of the creation and lacks only the originality. What bothers me is that I think we've been handed a Summa Theologica written by Tommy A. Quines and asked to treat it as by Thomas Aquinas. The game is unequal. George has told Martha that Sonny Jim was killed. The illusion is shattered by trying to take it out of the social contract that licensed it (the deceit that is electronic self). Geogre 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

... i think this is where realism comes in. We should not be surprised when people behave unethically, or when they find it hard to understand why others think they're wrong. Or to put it another way, everybody lies. Just a fact of life. I think your point about having it both ways here is very important though - wikipedia seems to engage needy people hugely, who then go through a cycle of feeling excited, empowered, frustrated then embittered - then wipe the slate clean and start again. The clutter talk of wiki-love and making the world a better place doesn't help.

I'm worried that people with serious, real life issues, both acute and chronic come here, get confused about their relationship to their computer screens, and end up getting hurt. There's a argument going on about clerks over at checkuser at the moment - it seems to me that someone has handed out badges, which become badges of first wiki, then self-esteem generally. Of course it's upsetting when someone suggests that your self-esteem is unneccessary - except it's not your self-esteem, it's only an imaginary badge. People handing out the badges bear some responsibility.

To bring these abstractions back to the nitty-gritty, essjay should simply stand down from his arb com, checkuser and oversight responsibilities, put an apology on the record and get on with everything he enjoys around here. If he finds this terribly hard, he should ask himself why....

Purples 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"clutter talk of wiki-love"? As you saying that Wikipedians need not try to be nice to each other?
No-one ever gives me a badge. I still have the cuddy rhino, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, we should all be nice to each other - I just find some users a bit zealous beyond reason in their wiki-faith. I'm trying to make a joke about a horn here, but you'll have to figure one out for yourselves..... ps. it's sad to see this thing explode - signal to noise ratio is not good. happy days all! - Purples 06:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

idealism, naturalism, empiricism, and realism (a message from Ancheta to Purples....)[edit]

(please see above para... and delete with apologies if considered clutter....)

P., I reply with a philosophical answer, which you may take as you please.

There is a beautiful street in my neighborhood, a quiet one, nicely proportioned, of just the right width and length, with mature trees, nice-looking houses, children who play on its lawns, and neighbors. Once, when driving slowly along it (so as not to alarm the children) I saw a couple speaking to each other. The woman, whom I believe to be the wife, was standing on a large rock, that she might tower over the man, and she appeared to be gesturing in a power-demanding way to the man. This disturbed me, as I have the illusion that those who live on that street have wonderful lives. Clearly, I have an ideal, about that street and life, which rests in my heart.

Although I have these ideals, the love of Nature and all its power lies in my heart as well, so that I understand that the mystery and beauty inherent in N. sometimes has no room for the demands of Man. Thus there are beings in Nature who deceive simply to survive, and their lives are testament to a Nature who lets them be. They exist and survive.

I was trained to respect empiricism because that is at the root of the power of our civilization, but realism probably enjoys a better-founded set of concepts. So I believe that your principled outrage at a being who has deceived, survived, and who has even found a better gig in his existence, may be a stage in the process of

Coping with Grief and Loss -- Common reactions. -- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
  1. Denial/shock It can't be
  2. Anger toward the person, situation or self
  3. Guilt - If only ...
  4. Depression, Loneliness, Facing death, etc.
  5. Relief
  6. Hope
  7. Return

So the outing of _ has me personally at #4. But I expect my feelings will transmute. I admit to reacting with #1. I do not feel a need to forgive, because I never felt #2. --Ancheta Wis 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And the street to which I referred above might be taken as a metaphor for Wikipedia. My references to Nature and Reality stand on their own.

Better to say nothing that to lie, I should have thought - it is not as if anything needed to be said in the first place. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Your opinion (and anyone elses)[edit]

On your screen on which version is the lettering of the key cleare this [40] or this [41] - i wish I knew how to do these things properly! Giano 08:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They're both rather indistinct for me. Maybe Bunchofgrapes can fix it up? Bishonen | talk 13:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
I'd give it a shot if I could get a version of the image without any of the letters. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2007

(UTC)

Sorry I no longer have one, I left it in Sic last week <sigh> <gulp> <shit>. Can you see the yellow letters OK though? Perhaps I could draw one of my own plans, but they take forever and I always lose my temper with the computer doing them Giano 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The yellow letters are somewhat better than the red for me <groan> <fuck> Bishonen | talk 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Giano, I've got autoCAD and draw buildings for a living - why don't you scribble what you're after on the back of fag packet, scan it and send it over? --Joopercoopers 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My problem <sigh> is that I can't draw, I have a house non-professional drawing package (see Belton House & Buckingham Palace etc.) but I need a plan to work from, as I immagine do you Joopers, and there is non to be found. It is such a big complicated evolution of a place it needs something like that picture to refer to, and I have left that picture in a book in Sicily, so grapes can't have a go either <double shit>, and only have the edited one on my computer. I might try and draw a plan from the picture - just as a reference guide, the yellow numerals do look clearer though than the red - just Giano 10:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sops and frumenty for all![edit]

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

Peter Isotalo 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ho, very tempting to go oppose you for being under-referenced, I must say! But I'm too disenchanted with FAC, it's gotten about as unpleasant as #wikipedia-en-admins the last time I looked in there (long time ago). You can see me and Giano and Geogre bitchin' and moanin' about FAC and FAR on Giano's talk, if you're foolish enough to want to ruin your appetite. Better just pass the frumenty please! Bishonen | talk 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I noticed the three of you being tarter than a bucket of vinegar. Just don't let them spoil all your fun... Deep down, I'm quite the idealist, and I'm going to see if I can't convince the footnote counters that the minimum amount of citations for an FA isn't quite that rigid. Wish me luck!
Peter Isotalo 09:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I don't have time to give it a proper read right now, but I am sure I will be supporting it just as soon as I have. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

AN:I Comment[edit]

Hey. Just wanted to apologize again more personally for that accusation on AN:I. It's been a rough coupla months on-wiki and off, and I guess I've been snapping a little. I don't remember who it was I was thinking of, but it was a prominent administrator, and they said they were 'disgusted' by my conduct, and that they would 'gladly recommend my DeSysoping to the ArbCom personally'. Not the most pleasant thing in the world to hear. I remember our interactions now on the topic of another bothersome user, and I apologize for mistaking you for someone else. Luckily, I've put myself on Administrative 'light duty' for the next term or two to get a nice, cleansing break from all of the warring. No harm done? --InShaneee 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all, InShaneee. Of course not. I remember two separate bothersome users we've had dealings with together... one too smart for his own good and the other, er, just the opposite—I don't know if those descriptions are enough for you to recall the people! What's light duty--no blocking? I took myself off admin duty altogether once, all the buttons, outraged that one of our best admins had been de-adminned from on high, most unfairly as I thought. That turned out to be a fine opportunity to write a full-scale article, for once. Hope you return refreshed after the light duty! It is only a website, after all. Best, Bishonen | talk 12:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC).
For me, 'light duty' is simply not getting into any pre-existing disputes...and by that, I mean distancing myself from the various Kurd/Turk debates. There's still a lot that needs to be done there, but I know another admin has stepped in for the time being, so I feel a little more comfortable letting it go for a time. Currently? I'm rediscovering my love of New Page Patrol :) . And hey, good to see you're turned your outrage into opportunity. This is just a website, but I think the reason we're all here is because we know it can be more than that. Happy editing. --InShaneee 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Spelling[edit]

The new Giano, with biretta.

I hace a feeling Beretta is not the right spelling for my new accoutrement - hang on I'll look Giano 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah here we are biretta Giano 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How about tiara? Bishonen | talk 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

One step at a time my child Giano 23:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, he has a Beretta! Clearly that's part of the Sicilian haircut! Geogre 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What else does a Sicilian keep in his daity red handbag? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A packet of Marlboro lights Giano 12:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
probably some lippy too - cardinal red naturally.--Alf melmac 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Very strange, though. edward (buckner) 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... don't say that. I thought my argument was real convincing. It makes me a little nervous if you don't, of all people! Mind you, I'm quite resigned to waking up and finding myself desysopped. I'm getting a bit pissed off by what goes on in this place. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
No, I meant the whole thing was very strange. Your argument was fine. I've been here 4 years in June, and nothing like this, ever. Best, and thanks again. I'm more upset by WorldTraveller. Very hard to find good editors. edward (buckner) 10:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an issue that won't die, too -- not WT, but the whole "you called me 'wrong,' which is clearly a personal attack." It's very difficult for people to understand that we should not insult people, but blocking is a type of insult. Geogre 12:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Favour requested[edit]

Hi, Bishonen. I'm posting stuff at Wikipedia when I really need to be writing my paper. In order to reduce the temptation for me to get involved, would you do me a favour and add User talk:GordonWatts to your watchlist. You'll remember Gordon's incredibly ill-judged self nomination for adminship over a year ago, and actually I'm turning to you mainly because you opposed him at the time, and were challenged lengthily, so you know what he's like, and couldn't be accused of unduly favouring him, but at the same time, I know you have a strong sense of allowing blocked users some dignity.

Gordon is a well-meaning editor, who hasn't a clue how to get along with people who disagree with him, and doesn't make the effort to try to get along with them. He posts hundreds of words, often in different colours to draw attention to them. And he has to argue on every little point. However, his article edits are often helpful, improving word flow, correcting inaccuracies (whether Terri Schiavo was in a hospice or a hospital on a certain date), fixing spelling errors, etc. Unfortunately, he has tried very hard to get links to his own websites put in to the article, and got upset at the opposition, which included a lot of completely unnecessary rudeness and belittling. A community ban was sought, and he argued with everyone, even those who were trying to help him, and posted thousands of words, getting quite disruptive, and lost a lot of the support that he originally had. The ban vote was closed incorrectly, as the community had mostly said either that he couldn't go near anything to do with Terri Schiavo, or that he could edit the Schiavo articles but only post once a day on the Schiavo talk pages. He was told that he couldn't edit the articles, and could post once a day on the talk pages — something which nobody had voted for. He then filed an arbitration case against all the people who had voted against him, and started arguing and wiki-lawyering with the arbitrators. Then he appealed to Jimbo, and was blocked indefinitely for disruption. There was some very bad-taste gloating.[42] [43]

The indefinite block was reduced to a month, but he's still able to edit his talk page, and is still reacting there. He's in danger of being permanently blocked if he mentions his links again, and I don't actually think he'll do it if nobody provokes him by telling him that they're not suitable. He has accepted that the consensus is that he may not add them to articles, and in any case, he doesn't have any greater history of edit warring than other people on the Terri Schiavo article. However, I'm worried that he's going to respond to posts where people tell him that he's not to mention his links, and that it may be used against him to make the block permanent.

In case you're interested, there's discussion here and here. There's also a longish post from me here, which is cross-posted from TenOfAllTrades's talk page. Don't feel under any obligation to wade through any of it, though, as I'm not asking you to unblock Gordon or to "vote" in any discussion. All I'm asking is that you'd keep an eye on his talk page, and discourage people from posting anything that will make him feel he has to respond. (And poor Gordon feels he has to respond to everything!) If people keep up the arguments on his talk page, he'll argue back, saying why they're wrong to say he can't talk about his links, and then it's quite likely that someone will block him for talking about them. But if everyone leaves him alone, and stops mentioning his links even on other pages that he watches, there's a reasonable chance that he'll stop mentioning them. He has already said he'll stop, but he's just not able to not repond when someone argues with him. I've seen you dealing quite kindly and tactfully with people who had trouble "letting go" before. I think I'll ask GTBacchus to watch that talk page as well. I'm really not asking for any action: this could be one of the cases where doing nothing is the best possible solution. I'd just like to think that a few people who are not interested in trampling on people's dignity would be watching his page. Thanks. Musical Linguist 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry that you don't have the tact for the job. You don't need a lot of tact. Gordon, contrary to what you might think, is not huffy. He once gave a barnstar to an editor who had called him an asshole and a certifiable nutjob, and had said he needed his ass kicked, plus lots of other similar things. And my recent post to him isn't exactly full of compliments, but he e-mailed me and thanked me. Anyway, if you feel "a great wave of, hmm, impatience" engulfing you, you can't do better than think of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux, who describes in her journal/autobiography how someone was infuriating her, complaining, nagging, finding fault, etc., and Thérèse listened in silence, and then, before leaving the room, did one more thing. "I gave her my best smile." My mother always used to quote that — as a joke, not as an attempt to preach!
Seriously, though, I think there's a problem if people start goading a blocked user by telling him on his talk page that he's not to mention his links, and then threaten him with an indefinite block if he answers, on his talk page, that he doesn't think that's fair, or that he doesn't need Wikipedia to link to his websites, because he gets plenty of hits anyway. I'm all for increasing a block when a blocked user spends his block time by filling his talk page with "[Name of blocking admin] likes to rape little boys". But if we don't have the self control not to insist on having the last word, why should we expect him to? You said something wonderful months ago about how admins are more powerful than users, but so much more powerful than blocked users, and that a sensitive awareness of that should make us tolerant of what blocked users say when they're blocked. I can't remember the context, or where you said it, but I'm annoyed I didn't make a note of the diff at the time. because it was one of the best posts I've ever seen. It's the reason I though of you when making the request. <groan> Anyway, Gordon hasn't posted in the last few days, and I have some hope that he'll follow the advice I gave him, if people don't provoke him. If they do, I have absolutely no hope at all that he'll be able to ignore them.
Important note: the "best smile" advice is intended strictly for Bishonen, and perhaps for some other humans reading this post. I do not recommend that Bishzilla try giving "her best smile". I think it would be far more scary than her frown. (Has anyone ever seen her best smile and lived?) <flees in terror at the thought of Bishzilla's best smile> Musical Linguist 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

I am starting the think that my early archiving[44][45] of our previous discussion gave the impression of a dismissal of your views. It was not my intent to dismiss your concerns.

Directly before this dispute, I decided to take a wikibreak due unrelated issues. My intent was to keep my talk page clear. I gave the edit summary to indicate that I was archiving it and that it was being addressed on WP:ANI. I was not trying to snub you, and I am sorry if that is how it came across.

My wikibreak is not related to this issue, rather I am making an exception to my wikibreak to deal with it. No hard feelings, we can disagree, but we need to remember that we are both working towards what we think is best for Wikipedia. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, I hear that cannibis can really fuck with your wits. Could that be the problem here? Bishonen clearly doesn't want you harassing her here. Your pre-archiving post shows what you thought of "her concerns", or as you so delicately put it in all your no-NPA fervor, "this shit". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, grapes, I was simply attempting to apologize and make my motives clear. People don't smoke pot and go all crazy, I don't know where you have done your research, but that is way out there in left field. My pre-archiving has been explained, and I thank you not to attribute motives to me like that. I have received a lot of hostility, and I have myself been a little uncivil, I was attempting to apologize for that.
I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think it is in line with my motives of easing any hard feelings that may of accumulated. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I see your apology hidden in there, where you're sorry if Bishonen misinterpreted your comments. Very big of you. (1) Stop blocking people, you don't have enough awareness of your surroundings to do it safely. (2) Go away, stop posting here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've just been marveling at the filter that turns, "You've done the wrong thing. The policy does not allow that kind of action" into "You are completely correct, and everyone who counts is with you." I know there are things that can do that, but I've never ingested any. Geogre 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Peace man! Giano 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of BabyDweezil[edit]

Bish, as you have experience of this user, would you mind commenting on the indefinite block? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Out of curiosity, what is the new policy on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard versus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ? Thanks for your time. Smee 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sorry it wasn't clear. Proposed community bans go on WP:CN now, as being the business of the community, and not specifically of admins.[46] If I've got it right, community bans are one of the main purposes, or the main purpose, of the Community noticeboard — what it was created for. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Thank you. Smee 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

BD Move[edit]

Hi. My oppose seemed to have gotten lost in the move - would you mind fixing that? Thanks. --Justanother 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I see now. Thanks --Justanother 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a word[edit]

Hi Bish, Sorry to trouble you with this, but would you mind having a word with Certified.Gangsta? He's repeatedly trying to add an unsourced and disputed claim into Michelle Marsh (model), he's accused me and another editor of stalking when we've reverted him, and he is going around making edits to the effect that the Taiwanese aren't ethnically Chinese on all sorts of pages. It's gotten to the stage where more of his edits are reverted than kept, and by a wide range of editors. He's sticking to the letter of 3RR, but not the spirit. I don't think he's deliberately trolling, but the end effect is still disruptive. For his sake, can you have a talk to him? Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to, I've got his page watchlisted. It's just everybody at the same time... I mean, Gordon... yikes. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Gordon, Essjay, and less publicly but more ironically, there's been a slightly nasty stoush happening in one part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Kindness Campaign. Sigh. Thanks. I owe you one, another one. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you don't — not yet at least — I wrote a note for CG, but lost momentum when I checked his latest contribs — he seems to have stopped the Michelle Marsh thing cold, presumably in response to Nandesuka's message. That would be nice. I'll take another look tomorrow. Yaaaawn... Bishonen | talk 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey Bishy, how's it going?? Sorry about that Michelle March episode, I did a quick google search and hopefully it will be resolved. As for the Taiwan vs. China situation, enough had been said about that. On a side note, I was hoping you can get in touch with Ben and help resolve our differences. I mean, no offense, but he seems a lil hostile toward me ever since we decided to block Guardian Tiger. Thankz :)--Certified.Gangsta 05:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gangsta, I hear you're a boob man! Seriously, this ... what a sight. I'm glad to hear that's all over. And it's good to see you around. People are leaving your Bishzilla banner alone, I trust. But, er... I hope you realize what horrors the banner link can lead your unsuspecting visitors into? Did you, in fact... <gulp> ... did you CLICK on it, CG...? Best not, believe me. Bishonen | talk 08:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

hahaha you're hilarious, bish. Btw can you blcok User:LionheartX since he is obviously a sock of you-know-who.--Certified.Gangsta 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought this kind of sockpuppetry is always block on sight. (ban-evasion, WP:POINT) It seems like you're not interested in getting involve. Never mind then. I guess I'll have to go through the same painful process everytime :(.--Certified.Gangsta 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Bish, Bish, Bish...help me!--Certified.Gangsta 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was kind of enjoying the sight of him on Ben's page, and of Ben's words on WP:AN3RR... I'm a bad person. Now what? Bishonen | talk 08:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

RFC minor formatting[edit]

I don't blame you. It's quite misleading that user RFCs and article RFCs even share a name, as they function and are formatted quite differently. The most important thing about user RFCs is right at the top of the template: there must be a co-signer of the RFC, somebody who has attempted (independently of Anynobody) to resolve the issues with JA. Both Anynobody and the other editor must sign, and provide evidence of their efforts to resolve the problem within 48 hours of creating the RFC. Evidence means diffs. Everything else can pretty much wait, but the 48-hour thing is obligatory, and if it's not complied with, the RFC is highly likely to be deleted as soon as the 48 hours are up.
What I'd prefer to do is move the page into Anynobody's own space, in other words give it a name of the form User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother; stop the people who have already been asked to comment; move it back into Wikipedia space later, when it's a bit more ready to meet the world; and start those 48 hours then instead of now. OK? Then I could give some help and advice tomorrow, as I'm about to go to bed right now. (Such is my timezone.) If you reply now—right now—I can move the page; if not, please confer with A and move it yourself if you know how (it's easy), or ask any experienced user. For instance one of the freaks that hang out at this page of mine. And don't list it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct yet! Bishonen | talk 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Did not get to your comment early enough, but added myself as a party and some evidence. Let myself or User:Anynobody know how it looks/what should be done at this point... Also, what is the best way to notify previously involved parties about the existence of the page in a neutral manner? Smee 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. Changing the page into a userpage until it's ready is the way to go IMO, especially because then there'll be time to deal properly with the "dispute resolution" thing. Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late. But never mind, this is what to do with an RFC that's already in Wikipedia space (=has a name beginning with "Wikipedia"):

  • The name of the page should be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. This is standard, and Anynobody, who's making the request, isn't supposed to be in the title.
  • The page must be listed and linked on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
  • About notifying people, that's a little delicate, indeed. The only person who must be notified, and perhaps the only one who should be, is Justanother. If you want to spread the news, you obviously have to be careful not to simply notify people who have issues with Justanother. Not sure what you mean by "previously involved". Involved in what? Anynobody seems to be asking for comments on the way the two of them have been interacting—how is anybody else involved in that?
  • The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.) A technical point, also: the top 3 links under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" don't work, and I think there are some more on the page that don't. You need html links for talkpage sections, and you need permanent links, that'll still point to the same section after the page itself is archived or whatever. And, as the instructions say, linking to a whole page isn't useful. I can easily format the links so they work right if you like (just ask), but you do need to have better dispute resolution to point to.
  • I don't think Anynobody should put his reason for making the request on the talkpage, it should be on the main page. Under "Statement of the dispute", perhaps, or "Description". (It's a very nice explanation—it's good to see a RFC that's not full of acrimony and it's-all-his-fault —but it would be even better if it was a little shorter.)
  • Finally, I'm sorry it's such a bureaucratic nightmare. You probably weren't expecting that. User RFC's are horrible timesinks. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies.[edit]

  • Well... I'm actually a little frustrated that you asked my advice and then ignored it. - Please understand that I had started to add to the RFC, upon request from User:Anynobody, before I had seen your suggestions, so I did not "ignore" your suggestions, it was just too late. At any rate, I will try to implement some of your suggestions now. Please bear with me, as you are correct - I am unfamiliar with this process. If you feel you can adjust the page, be my guest. Smee 00:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I have notified User:Jossi as per your suggestion and asked for help. DIFF If you think you can fix some of the links on the RFC page, and/or fix it to be more appropriate, that would be most helpful. Smee 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
"Changing it into a userpage can be done any time as long as nobody has commented, after that it'll be too late." Nobody has commented, so I can still userfy it to give you more time for dispute resolution. Shall I do that, or do you think you can have it done up right within the 48 hours? I won't do a technical fix of the links at this stage, as I think you need links to better places. Good that you pinged Jossi. Anybody can list the page, but if you do want the page userfied, it shouldn't be listed yet. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I am not opposed to userfying the page, but User:Anynobody started the RFC initially, I was just responding to his request that I add comments/evidence. If you or Anynobody wishes to do that - I have no objection - but I probably should not. Smee 01:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, I'd better not, then, I assumed you two were in touch. But I've moved A's explanation from the talkpage to the project page. Please let him know that he should sign it, if you speak — no reason to make the reader dig around for who is bringing the RFC. Bishonen | talk 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
I wouldn't know any more than you. I've only "spoken" to him through Wikipedia talk pages. But I will let him know if I do. Again, as User:Anynobody started the RFC, and not myself, as far as I am concerned your judgment is fine. Smee 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm really sorry to cause so much trouble on both of your parts, rest assured I'm learning. Also please understand I am very thankful for your help. Maybe an RfC was the wrong road for me to take? Essentially I'd like other editors to take a look at my interaction with User:Justanother. I honestly don't know if I'm wrong or right, so my intention in listing myself was making it clear I'm willing to accept accountability for any errors I've made. Anynobody 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) To be clear I'm happy to accept any suggestions. Anynobody 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than an RfC, that as Bishonen put it are "horrible timesinks" (an opinion that I also share), would you consider informal mediation between you and Justanother? Sometimes having such a third-party assisting can really help in disputes such as this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I did consider mediation at first, but personally I'd like to hear from several editors. If I understand what Bishonen is proposing, it would be to move the page as is to a subpage under my userpage. Once it gets a few comments, then move it back to the RfC? If that's what the proposal is I have no objections. Anynobody 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not "once it gets a few comments". It won't get comments while it's in your userspace, that's the whole point. It won't start until it's moved back to a live RFC, and, on my reading of the always-vexed RFC rules, you would be able to restart the clock for those 48 hours when it was moved back. What you need the time for is dispute resolution. The rule is that there must be real attempts, by two people, to resolve differences with JA, or the RFC gets deleted. It doesn't have to be formal mediation, informal is fine, but it must be a real discussion—not scolding JA with warning templates and such. Of course the hope is that the mediation will be enough in itself, and the RFC become superfluous—compare Jossi's comment here. But if it isn't enough, it's in any case a prerequsite for the RFC. OK, I've gone ahead and moved the page into your userspace as User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

A quick question before this goes any further, did it really seem like I was posting warning templates and scolding him? Anynobody 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No, IMO your attempts were ok, I was talking about Smee's. "There must be real attempts, by *two people*, to resolve differences with JA". See the top of the RFC template: "at least *two people* need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed". You're only one. Bishonen | talk 07:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your reply, I'm sorry if that last question seemed blunt but what you were describing is exactly the kind of thing I meant to avoid. Considering that I didn't mean to create a situation where an RfC was necessary, for a little while I thought I was really messing up if you were describing my attempts the way I thought. I also don't want to give you the impression I don't consider your advice valuable, I just figured the worst that could happen was it got rejected. I know it may sound crazy, but I've been trying to do this without making things worse with Justanother. If I had to find somebody else to sign off besides Smee he might think I was creating a cabal against him (I wish I could say I'm joking). Anynobody 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever User:Anynobody and User:Bishonen are comfortable with. Smee 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen I guess your proposal confused me because Smee and myself make two people trying to resolve these issues on User:Justanother's talkpage. I found a couple of other editor's who's posts User:Justanother archived from his talk page regarding similar concerns. I re-posted it for consideration. If it fails (the RfC), then it fails. I really do appreciate your time on this, thanks :) Anynobody 04:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist[edit]

User:Uvak38/Veronica Yurach Aboriginal Artist Thank you Bishonen for moving my article and not just quick deleting it. I also appreciate your advice on the wording in my article that needs to be changed, you are the first who has made it clear to me what is wrong with it. As far as Veronica's story goes I will have verifiable published reference material from a reliable source.

Very cool. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Clue needed[edit]

Hi. I know that Smee respects your opinion so could you please send him a clue re his removal of my POV tag. diff of my objecting. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring over it. ps Please see User_talk:Jossi#Your_offer and User talk:MrDarcy#PA by User:Johnpedia for a different perspective on Anynobody, i.e. the view from the trenches. Thanks. --Justanother 15:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And finally the false accusation of PA. Smee is back and true to form. --Justanother 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scared.[edit]

  • I am quite frankly getting scared for my personal safety due to User:Justanother's personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. DIFF1, DIFF2. There is a reason for the language text in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks that says comment on content not contributors. I am uncomfortable and not well with this, to say the least. Smee 15:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
    • OH MY GAWD. What a drama queen! Can someone please please please send him a clue! --Justanother 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry this conflict is getting to you, Smee. I have to agree with Friday and Justanother that there's no external reason for you to be scared, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. That's not what it's supposed to be like to edit here! I hope you'll find it in you to walk away from the most stressful pages for a few days and decompress by editing uncontroversial stuff. When people do that, they're often surpried and relieved to find that other people do pick up the slack. That the page does survive their absence. Or so ALoan tells me. ALoan, back me up here? Bishonen | talk 02:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Thank you for the support. Smee 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
          • And Smee, while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect, I do realize that I could have been wrong and you might actually be getting that upset and really be feeling fear. Just know, Smee, that I come in peace! Mean you no harm. Would certainly buy you a cuppa coffee if we were to meet. So no worries, man. --Justanother 03:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
            • That is hard to believe, but I will try. Suffice it to say that that situation would be unlikely to occur. Smee 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
              • Smee, I am a total sweetheart! You would love me. --Justanother 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                • We're done here. while I figured the "Scared" was all BS for effect does not go very far towards acknowledging that my feelings are real. It invalidates your following statements. But thanks for the effort. Just try to act like a total sweetheart here on Wikipedia, like you would offline, and we should get along better. Smee 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
                  • I said that to explain why I called you a "drama queen" instead of making any effort to acknowledge your feelings and try to assuage your fears. Bishonen's reply highlighted my failing so I tried to repair it. Or at least repair the part where you say that you felt fear for your safety in the real world. As far as your "safety" here, I offered you an olive branch twice and you spit at me. That said, I have decided to give my sarcasm a rest but you can still expect me to continue to object most strenuously to any abusive editing on your part. --Justanother 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • I am glad that you say that you will finally try to give your sarcasm a rest. I am sure that will be appreciated by all. Smee 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, a bit late for backing up, but yes: if you are doing a job that needs doing, then I find that someone will step in and do it if you stop doing it. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Isps gate.jpg[edit]

This image was released under the GFDL. I'm not aware that such a release can be revoked. Is there a reason why it was deleted? -Will Beback · · 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was problematic, sorry. In view of what I've just read on the article talk, and what people told me on IRC, I've undeleted. Bishonen | talk 01:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. -Will Beback · · 01:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clue-o-gram needed[edit]

File:HulkStamp.jpg

This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Wednesday, 5 March 2008.
ROARRR!!

Would you mind helping User:Anynobody out with a clue? I am including a stamp because I figured that you probably needed one and that is why you were not able to clue Smee in for me earlier. Anyway, now Anynobody is impugning User:MrDarcy as "representing" me and being "out of line". Diff. I feel bad because Mr Darcy is on wiki-break and he was just trying to help me with a very rude post, User talk:MrDarcy/Archive5#PA by User:Johnpedia. Thanks. --Justanother 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

From my archive "You appear to experience some kind of Incredible Hulk persona when you really start to melt down (I was gonna say Jekyl/Hyde but the Hulk sounds less like an insult considering many consider him to be a superhero whereas the former is considered a monster)." --Anynobody --Justanother 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Justanother I can tell you are really angry, but in this case you took things a bit too far when you had MrDarcy chastise Johnpedia for simply giving me his opinion in a user talk page discussion. Johnpedia might have phrased his opinion differently if he knew you would be watching. Also I can't invite you, you asked me not to post on your talk page anymore (Posting notice of the RfC is an exception, you still deserve to know about action be taken against you). Anynobody 09:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not angry, Anynobody; I am having a blast. When I get angry it is pretty obvious, as you well know (green skin, torn clothes, you know). --Justanother 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Monstergram[edit]

(Oh, come on.) To whom it concern: little Justanother total sweetheart. What's with bad press for monsters? ROAAARRRR!!! Bishzilla (experiencing very good persona) | ROAR 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Little people not understand green skin monsters. Green skin monsters not bad! Only big! --JustaHulk 12:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A flower...[edit]

A flower for the 8th of March, from User:Zocky
Aww! It's lovely. Thank you Zocky. And thank you very much for the picture popups, the search function, and the link completion. :-) Bishonen | talk 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Happy 8th of March, Bish! The day that originally signified the rebellion of the working women against the kitchen slavery and called for a refusal to accept the oppression and Babbittry of the household work! In my Soviet and Post-Soviet years the holiday has already changed the meaning to a wussy combination of St Valentine's and Mother's day but I kind of like the original meaning. But you stay joyful! You hear me?. --Irpen.
--Heheh, this poster is very cool. Young radical banner-carrying (yet aproned) woman putting out her hand to pull free the older woman — her mother? — who is being crushed under the weight of household paraphernalia! Is that a samovar on top of her? Bishonen.
---Yes, it is a samovar all right. And the apron worn by the younger woman is perhaps due to her being a factory worker or something. Enjoy a pic on the similar theme below. The theme of "liberating" women from an old way of life was pretty big then. --Irpen 18:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
File:Doloy kuhonnoe Rabstvo.jpg
Soviet propaganda poster from 1931. The text reads: "Down with the kitchen slavery! Yes to a new way of life!" The buildings seen through an open door carry their names. The sky-scrapper is a "Club", then goes "Cafeteria", "Kitchen-Factory" and "day nursery". Please note not only the message of the poster but the artistic style of Grigoriy Shegal (brief bio in en, some other works). --Irpen

What is all this about the 8th March being so special- is it someone's bithday? Giano 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! It is the birthday of Klara Zetkin that we all celebrate here. --Irpen 23:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, yeah - er I see! Klara's all yours Irpen.

Thanks Giano! You know, this woman was picked to symbolize the left-wing alternative to the "bourgeois" feminism. --Irpen
Beter still in 1971 on this day Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali - truly amazing date! Giano 23:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bish, in case you also like "sweet and cheezy", we are all human after all, here (Image:8march_landysh.jpg) is the image from the same country on a different theme. I am not allowed to post a fairuse image to your page :(, so only a link but see here for a full context. Cheers, --Irpen 02:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair Lewis was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for literature. That's the connection to Sweden, as Lewis wrote Babbitt, and he said, when he accepted, "Our American professors like their authors like their literature: dead." Well, Lewis is now liked by professors, and poor, dumb Mr. Babbitt has become an adjective. Why, he's a big man at the local Elk's Club. An Elk is not to be confused with Anne Elk, who was a noted female professor whom the Soviets decided to celebrate on March 8th. Geogre 02:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • in that respect then poor dumb Mr Babbit was rather like poor Mr Bobbit Giano 12:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Mrs. Babbitt was a pro with a chopping knife, but she would never have considered attacking her blobbery husband. Also, he was rather sexless, or befuddled about it, and lacked the malice necessary for getting an immigrant bride and then committing marital rape. He was a praire flower, not a Bronx cheer. Geogre 12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I meant in becoming an adjective, although I think Mrs Bobbit created a very - what did yu think I meant? Giano 12:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Quick favor?[edit]

  • I tagged a bunch of images I had uploaded with {{db-author}}. Though it may not be the perfect db-speedy tag for this purpose, it works. If you have a chance, feel free to go through my latest contribs and delete those newly-tagged images. If not, I'm sure some other Admin will notice it. Thank you for your time. Smee 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
    • There aren't any in your recent contribs (unless we're talking about Commons, which isn't for me to meddle with), so I suppose JKelly took care of it? Bishonen | talk 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Evidently somebody did, yes. No, the Commons stuff are all Free Images, and heavily explained with detailed licensing tags. Smee 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage[edit]

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel strange . . . head . . . swimming . . . clothes . . . stretching[edit]

Need help. Users Smee and FoO breaking rules at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother. Posting threaded counter-point to my supporter is direct violation of the instruction statement at the top of the section and at the bottom of the RfC. My response area mine, not for non-supporter, that must go on talk page . . . must . . . hold . . . on . . . 3RR on it now cannot do more . . . . need help. --Justanother 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Users signing other subsection should not edit the the "Response" section, but that does not mean that they cannot comment below it. And it is highly inappropriate and conflict-of-interest for User:Justanother to be the one to "clerk" the page, and remove what he feels should not belong. That should instead fall to the mediators and outside parties involved in the RFC. Smee 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Smee, you are clearly misreading the very clear instructions. The Response Section is the section after Statement of the dispute and before Outside view. That section is for me and my supporters to make our statements without having to "defend" them in threaded discussions. Now take a look at the final bit where threaded responses to endorsements are specifically covered. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. How clear does it have to be? --Justanother 03:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It was a signed comment directly related to an endorsement, which is allowed. But in any rate, it is not your job to police the RFC in the manner that you see fit for it to proceed. Not to mention it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns. Smee 04:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
"it reflects poorly on your behaviour patterns" that I want to play by the rules? And you are wrong; it is not allowed. Wanna bet a week's editing? --Justanother 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Silence --Justanother 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll let others respond to this one. This bullbaiting is a waste of time. Smee 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Well OK, I just made you an offer to "put your money where your mouth is". Nothing wrong with that. Guess you don't care to. --Justanother 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


You about?[edit]

Hello Bishonen, got a quick favor to ask of you regarding a block you performed the other day. You about? (Netscott) 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guy got to it. You blocked user Headphonos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for a week the other day. I uncovered that that account was a sockpuppet of the banned User:SirIsaacBrock and JzG wasn't around so I was going to ask you to indef. block the sock. JzG has taken care of it, he also indef. blocked Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) another sockpuppet of the same user. Cheers. (Netscott) 14:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks, I was real busy but I was getting to it... sort of. ;-) Bishonen | talk 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

A favour[edit]

I think it is time that [47] was released into the wild - can you do it? I can't because of moving the history - but more importantly (you can all join in this) what does it have to be caled - I rather like the proper name "Palais Princier de Monaco" - Most people refer to it as the "The Royal Palace, Monaco" we already have the translation favoured by the official site [48] Prince's Palace of Monaco - I suppose that has to be the answer, a merge with that page but to my sunkissed ear it sounds clumsy and ugly. Giano 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it has to be "Prince's Palace of Monaco" - I have made the others redirects. Giano 10:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you don't want to cut and paste the article in your user page over the existing article, but would rather move it to keep the edit history intact? I have the potestas administratorum - would you like me to help? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks ALoan, I think Bishonen is doing while we speak! Giano 11:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sweatheart Giano 11:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe it—people couldn't leave the talkpage alone for two minutes. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. This is gonna be messy, avert your eyes. Bishonen | talk 11:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Zilla fix! Talkpage successfully merged with Project:Paranormal! All edit now! Bishzilla | ROAR 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Gulp, little user prostates self at altar of zilla's fury, thinks might be reprehensible. user learn better wikiteque - quick! [49] --Joopercoopers 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
/Bishzilla stuff little user firmly in pocket to keep safe from Bishonen's puny wrath. Encouragingly: Climb Reichstag now, little Joopercoopers? Bishzilla | ROAR 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

A clue, a clue, my kingdom for a clue.[edit]

Diff. When people that have the clues do not share the clues then the clueless remain clueless. --Justanother 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks . . . a lot[edit]

Thank you very much, Bishonen. Really! I am going to try to enjoy a well-earned wiki-break! --Justanother 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The deleted RfC[edit]

Hello Bishonen,

I see from your edit here you've removed this RfC. In your edit summary, you have stated that you see the parties' attempts to resolve the dispute were inadequate. However, the subject of this RfC has engaged in repeated egregiously uncivil and disruptive behavior, not only against Anynobody, but against any editor who does not share his beliefs or takes issue with his behavior. In fact, I had comments to add to the RfC, and to my surprise, the RfC was deleted. Please note I have seen efforts by Anynobody to resolve their dispute, and to avoid a dispute in the first instance. But as your edit cites that you view previous efforts of the dispute resolution as being inadequate, can you (as an experienced editor, especially in these types of matters) please suggest ways in which this type of dispute can be better handled and resolved, or what other steps should have been taken prior to creating the now deleted RfC? I seek the benefit of your experience and hope you can show the way here. Kind regards, Orsini 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

02:36, 10 March 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother" (This is much older than 48 hours with the certification still woefully inadequate, as I warned the participants several days ago, and Justanother has requested deletion.) Bishonen I understand you felt that it didn't meet the RfC requirements, however somebody else did and added it to the approved section. Moreover you didn't respond to my last post under the RfC discussion explaining that I was not the only signer, which is why it got approved I thought. You could have at least explained your view more clearly before deleting the RfC, either in the request itself or the RfC talk page.. I can see by your talk page history that you and Justanother are friends, and I suspect you may have let your feelings get in the way on this issue. I'm asking you to undelete the RfC, as there were other editors who have yet to comment. There certainly must be some way to escalate this matter above you, and must point out that if you take no further action I will research and pursue them. Anynobody 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I could have explained my view more clearly? Gosh. Well, if you say so. I did my best.[50] Certainly there are ways of seeking review of administrative actions, and I encourage you to pursue them. The formal way is to open an RFC on me. A simpler, more informal way is to post on WP:ANI. See the page instructions: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Anynobody, I can appreciate why you may be understandably annoyed at the RfC being deleted. However, I cannot agree with your assessment that Bishonen and Justanother are operating in a conflict of interest; in fact, please note this exchange with regards to the BabyDweezil case. It would appear the RfC User Comment process is very time-consuming, which is one reason why editors and admins are reluctant to pursue them, except in clear cases of disputes which cannot be resolved any other way. My personal opinion of Justanother's editing behavior is that it is inappropriate, however in order to back a new RfC, I would also need to demonstrate that I had made adequate attempts to resolve my dispute with Justanother, which I cannot do, as Justanother appears to me to become overtly hostile as soon as the premises he cites as facts are called into question. I find it difficult to reach consensus when such behavior is exhibited. However, I do believe and have observed that, to your credit, you have not only attempted to avoid disputes in the first place, you have also made considerable efforts to resolve them, despite Justanother's clearly uncivil and disruptive behavior, and the tag team games being played with an editor who has now been banned. It also appears to me that Justanother has a pattern of making comments to incite and provoke people, and initiate discussions in which his stated premises are inherently flawed; to cite one example of many: in the Barbara Schwarz article, he falsely claimed it was sourced mainly from postings to the Usenet and thus is not reliably sourced. I have read Bishonen's comments here and other comments about the process here and I hope Bishonen can suggest some ways to resolve the dispute. I do not personally believe Bishonen let feelings interfere with the RfC issue, and I believe you may agree that Bishonen may have had feelings to the contrary of those suggested after reading the exchange above with regards to the "section break and noticeboard disruption". Please review it, as it may change some of your opinions stated above. Kind regards, Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How about instead of deleting, you could move it back to User:Anynobody/Requests for comment/Justanother? Smee 04:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
What, again? Sorry, no, that's not the way it's done. See the RFC instructions: "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted." Not "will be moved to the userspace". Also, not "may" be deleted: will be deleted. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it's been totally deleted, so it needs to be started from scratch - if it's appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. Orsini 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest, Orsini? I'm afraid you've caught me at a bad time for it. I did suggest, as you saw at the top of this page, under the heading "Minor formatting", where I did my very best to babysit this RFC to one that would not have to be deleted. Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be seen to have been done, in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". I tried to explain how vital this was, and repeatedly warned Smee and Anynobody about the 48-hour rule. First I tried to get Anynobody to keep it in his userspace, to give time for the matter to be taken care of; indeed at one point I boldly moved it there myself; he would have none of it. I explained to Smee what was wrong with the diffs he presented as dispute resolution — I quote myself:
The links at "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are no good, to put it brutally. Posting warning templates on JA's page certainly doesn't qualify as attempted dispute resolution. (Didn't I tell you once that it was frowned on?) Dispute resolution means a bona fide attempt at reaching out, and I think you may be too upset with JA to be the best person for it. Suggestion: try asking Jossi, who knows the ropes, to contact JA and try to talk with him about Anynobody's concerns. (Yes, I know there's little time for that... people do tend to run short of time at this point. The way it's looking now, practically any admin will delete the page after 48 hours, if JA requests it.)
The links that were there when I deleted the RFC were no better. So, you ask, can I suggest alternative ways of resolving the dispute? Yes: try mediation. If anybody involved in this dispute wants further admin advice, I have to recommend you to ask someone else. I'm all talked out. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Talked out as you may now be, your efforts in spelling out things so concisely above are appreciated, and have not been wasted. Thank you for your reply. Best wishes, Orsini 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Deletionism is the Only Valid View[edit]

Character Sketch sat there as vandalism (not vandalized, but vandalism) with clean up tags on it for a good, long time. I don't know why I didn't delete it and create a new article so as to obliterate the history, but I suppose it was so that I could make a point about how more junk needs deleting and starting over. A valid subject does not warrant leaving garbage in place. Geogre 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Addendum: it's also at a position against Wikipedia naming conventions. It soooo should have been deleted when it was a dirty joke. Not now, of course.)

Wikify! Cleanup! Replace deprecated template! Fix some spelling errors! Where would we be without the wikignomes! By the time I got to the people who changed the whole example sketch to "I like pussy" or "I like cheeseburger", I had every sympathy. They sure didn't make it any worse. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah. It started as original essay with incorrect information, then got labelled a bunch, then got turned into "I like pussy," and that was "cleaned up" to "cheeseburgers." An analytical essay? Huh? Mine's not good, mind you, but I also don't think we especially need an article on what a character sketch is. A character sketch is a ... sketch ... of ... a character. Geogre 03:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of plumping it up with a bit of Pope? Remember the characters of women? I often quote "Some women have no character at all" to myself, in my head, when I catch myself with my hand in the salmiak jar. :-) Bishonen | talk 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
That's true, although, I suppose, to be nice about it, the "character sketch" is probably more common and better known as the "memories of Local Person" in the newspaper and the "portrait of Grotesque" that creative writing classes assign, so it would be a little mean to put in Atticus or Sporus or any of the women who have no characters in the Epistle to a Lady. Now, for an article on character, it would be so in. Geogre 12:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and ewwwww! for any candy that is only candy with the proper chemical added. Geogre 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Sorry to disappear into the ozone last quarter. Life gets complicated! Thanks for your input on the deletion vote on my user page. I appreciate the support for our little creative effort, even though it went nowhere. Even though my time is limited, I did manage to do some archiving and ran my watchlist during the last week. Some important material was lost to vandalism, so I see that things have not really changed much. I will not be around much for the forseeable future as I will be in Idaho for the next couple of weeks. Best Wishes. WBardwin 16:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to you, and your friends, for a reply. In looking things over (I really was out of the wiki-loop), the revelations about User:Essjay has shaken things up here. I had a good opinion of him/her in our limited contact, and appreciated his/her contributions. I see that User:Dmcdevit, who I "talk" with regularly, seems to have taken some personal responsibility for the situation, as he had recommended Essjay for additional responsibilities. This is so very unfortunate for all sincere editors here -- and for the encyclopedia. How are the administrators dealing with the issue? Is there anyway we peons could help? Best........ WBardwin 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We're all peons here, W. I have little idea what goes on in the higher echelons. As many people are fond of pointing out, with a triumph I never quite understood, WP:NOT a democracy. Bishzilla has the little arbcom in her pocket, but, heck, that's her, not me. As usual with the latest scandal, there was a furore (here and here), and then it died down. The big difference is that the outside world is a lot more interested (not in a good way) this time. :-( Let's see, what else. Oh, yes, Jimbo Wales has proposed a "verified credentials" scheme.[51] If that means an enforced release of our real identities on the internets, I'm out of here, personally—I'm funny that way. But, perhaps strangely, I haven't followed the case closely. All the little scandals are going on as usual, and claiming (wasting) the usual too-much-time. Bishonen | talk 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence[edit]

I know you didn't mean to, but I think mistakently labeled InShaneee as blocking Worldtraveller's account in your evidence page. As you can see by the block log, [52] InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly, only indirectly when he was a IP on January 2 i think this is the log. I came to request you actually change the title of the section of your evidence page to "InShaneee's block of Worldtraveller', 3 January 2007" to "InShaneee's block of 81.178.208.69, 2 January 2007", because while the fact that it was Worldtraveller behind the IP, InShaneee never blocked Worldtraveller directly. Thanks! — Moe 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Moe. Did I refer to the wrong block log? That wouldn't surprise me, but I can't find where I refer to a log for the 24-hour January block at all. If I did, can you tell me where, please? As for changing the heading, or referring to WT by his (varying) IP, no, I'd rather not. I call the user--the person--Worldtraveller throughout--it's not a mistake, but rather a mark of respect. I don't think it has any potential for misunderstanding, either, since I don't discuss the circumstances of InShaneee's block of the anonymous editor at all (if I had, I would have gone into the IP thing.) I have assumed WT himself and others will do that sufficiently, and also canvass the IP thing to the point of boredom and beyond--the arbcom doesn't have any realistic chance to miss it. I discuss the aftermath. (Same reasoning with A Link to the Past, btw--I don't address the reasons for the block, I assume others will). I don't want that heading changed. But thanks for bringing it up for consideration! I appreciate your scrupulousness in taking it to me, rather than changing it yourself. (P. S. Wrong date? Weird. Thanks.) Bishonen | talk 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Well, since it technically WT's IP and the section is accuratly describing everything else for the most part, I guess it doesn't hurt anything to say that it was in fact WT blocked instead of the IP. I just thought for the sake of accuracy it should be changed *shrug* no matter. Yeh, my scrupulousness is shocking too considering how many bold things I do without discussing it first :) Cheers! — Moe 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to response from CBDunkerson (eom)[edit]

  • Eom? Is that like "burp" or "yum" or "excuse me?" It really should be. Geogre 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but I think you may have misread CBD's original comment. He was indeed defending you against Tony's ridiculous attack. (and, Geogre, if you really don't know, eom means "end of message"). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I always tell my students never to write "In conclusion" in their conclusions: the words stop, so I figure that's the conclusion. Putting in a TLA to announce that there will be no more words is a bit weird, and saying, "This is all I have to say to you (link) and that's all I intend to say (eom)" is a bit...oh, let's call it brusque. Geogre 20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And I think you may have read it too superficially, so we're even. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
My paraphrase of CBD's coment: "Boy Howdy it sure does look like them fellas are conspiring together in a nasty convoluted plot with the sole goal of getting Inshaneee in trouble for some reason, but the AGF policy says we have to pretend it's just a crazy coink-i-dink, yup." Very inspiring stuff. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You go from strength to strength, dear boy. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Now wait a minute. First, about "eom". It's an "email"-ism, sort of like the old radio-speak where when one person is done talking they say "over" and people take turns talking. When one is done, they say "over and out". In the radio world this was because the communication channel was half duplex and both folks couldn't talk at once. In email, it's been adopted as a courtesy to indicate a subject only message is not a mistake. This was only a poke to turn Bishonen's "you have new messages" indicator on. "Brusque" only if you don't understand the context. In context, it's meant to be courteous. I'm not CBD, and haven't interacted with him a lot, but my assumption is he meant this as a courtesy, not to be brusque.
Second, about CBD's original comment. I think Bunchofgrapes's paraphrase is nowhere near accurate. I'm not sure you've noticed, but I am one of the folks who objected to his block of WT. I'm on your side in this. But this doesn't mean everything CBD says is evil. My paraphrase would be "Hey, Tony, your interpretation of this requires a bizarre convoluted nasty plot that no reasonable person would imagine could possibly be the case." His phrasing was a little oblique (and he's later apologized about this as well), but IMO the basic message was supportive. There may indeed be more history here than I'm seeing, but this is how I'm interpreting this exchange. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope it didn't look like anybody here was being brusque to you, in any case. I appreciate your taking the trouble to post. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
I think it's sort of cool that we have someone who, when presented with a clear choice, will reliably choose to defend the greater of two evils. If nothing else, he's a handy moral barometer to have around, in the sense of a compass that always points South. Nandesuka 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
/Bishzilla laughs majestically, whole page shakes and rumbles. Little Nandesuka be first to enjoy Bishzilla new SUPER POWER SIG! See how cool: Bishzilla ROARR!! 03:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
(Netscott) bows down to Bishzilla's impressive signature. (Netscott) 04:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I followed a link from the Arbcom case here and noticed this discussion. The link and 'eom' thing is my standard way of handling comments on my talk page... I respond there and post a link so that the person is notified of the response, but the discussion is not split between two pages. The 'eom' is to clarify that it is not an error that no further message is included below the title... which used to be an extremely common usage, but is apparently a bit dated. Sorry if it was unclear, perhaps I should link the 'eom' to End of Message.
On the other bit, I had already explained a few times that I was trying to underline how outlandish Tony's accusation was. If you choose not to accept that then there seems little I can do about it.
Finally, thank you Rick - for demonstrating the sort of character and true meaning of AGF, even towards those you disagree with, which all users should aspire to. --CBD 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy link[edit]

Bishonen, you might want to look at this, since it appears that once of your posts to AN/I was wiped. [53] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was the last to know what damage I had done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

your help is needed[edit]

Hey Bish, I'm not sure if you got my reply for the e-mail. So anyway long story short, going back to several other similar cases of block-evasion/ban-evasion such as User:Nationalist, User:PoolGuy, etc, it is pretty apparent that there isn't a great distinction between an indef. block and community ban. Obviously, circumventing a ban and then getting rewarded for it just seems illogical. Seriously, this is a joke. But anyway, worst case scentario I guess is to go straight to arbCom and get them to define an actual distinction between block and ban. Oh and btw did Crum e-mail youb back? Your thoughts on this?--Certified.Gangsta 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. Yes, he replied, it's me that's been real busy, sorry. But I saw the lates post on your page... it's a relief. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Bishy. On a related note, do you think it's necessary to protect his talkpage too? Given that there are some crazy wikilawyering and that unblock requests have been turned down more than 4 times in his previous accounts combined.--Certified.Gangsta 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. Protecting the talkpage of a blocked user is a very extreme action, it should only be done in cases of extreme and ongoing disruption. On a semi-related note, I commented in that weird half-archived thread on ANI, don't know if you saw it? Bishonen | talk 23:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Yup I just did. Thank you :)--Certified.Gangsta 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The gargle has worked[edit]

[54] a blessed miracle - he has found his voice. Let's hope he loses it again soon for all the good it does wiki-kind! Giano 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Adm... admonish..? Oh, piss. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

FA FAQ[edit]

Hi Bishonen. You dropped out of the discussion after the first night re changes to WIAFA. I wrote up this because the idea of an FAQ for FAs met with some approval later. Any comments welcome. Obviously, we need to be very careful about launching new wording for FAs, but I think there are some sound ideas written down here, that need to be written down. Marskell 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

I simply hadn't read the talk page since you posted that - rather busy at work. Yes, it is helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for more, then. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

User:His excellency[edit]

Bishonen, given your prior participation in discussions relative to this user, you should be aware of this thread. Cheers. (Netscott) 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, I saw it, actually. I haven't decided whether to comment, but I've asked them to move the proposal. It should go on WP:CN. Bishonen | talk 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
I understand your reservations. If the IP is indeed HE then of course such disruption is getting a bit out of hand and makes me hesitant as well. Good on you for pointing out WP:CN as well. Thanks for the response. See you. (Netscott) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of indef-blocking user:His excellency - His excellency has indeed gone too far, even after the ArbCom decision. These repeated cases of vitriolic harassment are intolerable. A clear consensus has also emerged at the CN discussion. Rama's arrow 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A favor[edit]

Hi. I know that User:Smee respects your opinion so I am asking if you would be interested in helping out with my dispute with Smee over what I consider his WP:DE. I have sincerely tried to get him to stop but this is ongoing and just cropped up again. I would like to get a 3rd party involved, not as a precursor to some time-wasting User RfC, but to genuinely handle this dispute. Here is the latest:

  1. Once upon a time there was a small article about a small anti-Scientology propaganda piece called The Bridge (film). It looked like this not too long ago. I had been editing in the article almost since its creation. Smee has been there a while too, we met there in fact and Smee gave me a Barnstar for being nice to him (that is because I am nice, at least until it is proven that the intention to be nice is most definitely not shared).
  2. Smee made a series of edits to give what I consider undue prominence to the dedication in what I consider an effort to make the article itself into an anti-Scientology propaganda piece. Here and then with a screenshot here. There are other similar efforts by Smee at what I consider propagandizing both in that article and in others but I am not addressing Smee's POV-pushing here, I am addressing his WP:DE in pursuit of it.
  3. Ten minutes after opening a topic in talk, I removed the undue prominence and replaced it with a mention of the dedication in the lead; a very fair compromise, I thought.
  4. One hour later, Smee reverted me without discussion even though I had specifically invited discussion in talk. He claimed in that edit summary I lacked consensus when, in actual fact, his "dedicating the article" is what really lacked consensus. He claimed I failed to discuss when it was him that had failed to discuss. Smee continued his improper edit-warring (history) and only stopped because I asked a neutral 3rd party to weigh in. When the neutral party also objected (more as a "film person" I think than as someone sensitive to the use of this project as a propaganda medium but that speaks to the fact that propagandists violate simple standards of article creation that are evident even without considering POV issues), Smee self-reverted with a deprecating remark. Another editor with media experience came in and agreed on non-POV issues that Smee's edit is inappropriate for the article.

In my opinion, Smee's behavior in this incident is disrespectful and disruptive. Bishonen, I could show you a number of similar incidents but this one shows my problem just fine, I think. It really is a problem; not my POV, not me whining, etc. Smee makes inappropriate edits then edit wars over them rather then discuss and continues to edit war until a 3rd party or parties come in and back me up (and they always seem to back me up). I do not mind that Smee does not want to take my word when I say that one of his edits will not stand. That is his right. I do want him to stop edit-warring to reinsert the inappropriate POV edit until the issue is resolved. The disputed material should be removed to talk and discussed and remain removed until the issue is resolved, not reinserted repeatedly in some phony "compromise" (a term he likes to use as he reinserts). That is my desired outcome. His agreement to to so. Would you please help us? Thanks. --Justanother 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Justanother. I think in all honesty it's somebody else's turn to deal with youse guys. I'm off to a rest home for a while. Why not ask Jossi? He even offered to help mediate between you, didn't he? Braver man than me. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Understand completely and do not hold it in the least against you. I will "shop it around" a bit. Thanks and enjoy the jello - I hear the orange flavor is particularly good! Take care. --Justanother 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please respond[edit]

to this. --Ideogram 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You are not helping Gangsta any by letting him think he is right. Surely you know that if it goes to ArbCom he will almost certainly be sanctioned. You can save everyone a lot of trouble by getting him to back off now. --Ideogram 04:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me how Bishonen is somehow responsible for this individual? El_C 04:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen is just about Gangsta's only friend at Wikipedia. If you look at the thread on AN/I, you will see that she angrily defended him when I mentioned the fake banner incident. Gangsta interpreted this to mean "you're the one who is stalking, disrupting, bullying, and POV pushing all over the place. Bishonen made that quite clear." I asked Bishonen to confirm or deny that this is really what she meant to say; she has not replied yet. I am surprised you are not aware of this. Have you read the entire thread? --Ideogram 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What is: "Given the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop" supposed to mean, specifically? El_C 04:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, El C. In the workshop for the RFAr on InShaneee, Tony Sidaway offered the "Proposed finding of fact" that Worldtraveller had stalked and personally attacked InShaneee, and that "statements by some experienced Wikipedians" had encouraged him to do so.[55] The only link given by Tony for that encouragement was to a statement by me. Tony and Ideogram went on to discuss how my "bad advice" was something of an excuse for Worldtraveller (who protested indignantly at what he called "condescending nonsense"). I'm assuming that workshop thread was the concern Ideogram had in mind. I didn't reply to the Proposed finding. Tony had linked to some of my best work, so there didn't seem much to add. Perhaps Ideogram was worried I might not have seen it, and prodded me on ANI and here on my page to get a dialogue going? I don't think that would be fruitful or constructive though. (I have some prior experience of attempting to dialogue with him.) El C, please don't encourage him to post here. Ideogram, please don't post here. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I understand your position and share your indignation. El_C 18:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A present[edit]

I've just chucked these out of Blenheim Palace and orphaned them. I have rather neglected poor old Blenheim of late (it had even acquired an info box!) - so you can have them! Giano
A very large vat is necessary. It's a pleasing response. Geogre 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Smee on ANI[edit]

Here - your comments are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert war[edit]

--Ideogram 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One rv is a revert war now? How interesting. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
One RV should be enough, I would think. People who want to see it or make it again and again are obviously having some sort of adverse pscyhopharmaceutical reaction. I mean, Ideogram must be talking about the movie, right? There's no context to what he says. Or is there a war at donut, which is often misspelled as "donot." Donuts are for eating, and they make very poor implements of war. (I would rather not say more now. I have many dark theories about the evil genius that we need to get rid of. See me on secret.agent.irc.) Geogre 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Image help?[edit]

Allo.
So, I just picked an admin at random for some help with something pretty small.
(btw, you may want to tell bishzilla to be more carefully when handling editors. It took me a LONG time to de-flattenify myself after I got squashed!)
Anyways, I noticed that the sata logo was a jpg, and there's a notice requesting that someone replace it with a svg or png image. I'm veeery new to svg, and have zero knowledge of how to upload images, do copyright stuff, yadda yadda yadda.
So, anyways, I just used inkscape to essentially trace the original logo, also exported as a png, and uploaded both to my school account. Any chance you upload this and/or this, if they are suitable replacements? (And [56] is just a link to a blown-up svg version, if that's necessary for anything)
This request also goes out to any of the many editors who tend to read this talk page. (except bishzilla. I don't want to be squished again. It messes with my hair.) Bladestorm 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know how to upload, but am a bit fuzzy about image formats and their appropriateness, also whether the way you made yours is ok copyright-wise, so I hereby request some image whizz to do it. Wait, I'll have Bishzilla request it with her new power sig, so nobody has a chance of MISSING IT. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Zilla kindly request page visitor to help the little Bladestorm! Bishzilla ROARR!! zilla4admin 21:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Transcendental Meditation[edit]

Can't help but notice, after being away for awhile, that all of Askolnick's criticism of TM has virtually disappeared from this page and what is left is pretty much a promotional piece for the practice. Most unfortunate, and not up to Wiki standards IMO Gatoclass 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot[edit]

Regarding this, yes and no. Most article talk pages have been GimmeBotified, but not all; the (temporary) instructions are hard to nail down during the transition because there are several different scenarios. The bot moves the facfailed nomination to an archive, closes and tags it, clears the redirect, leaving a link to the old nom on the cleared fac page, so that a subsequent nominator will find the old failedfac already linked on the new fac page (hence, "retain"). "Add" will go away once botification is finished, and retain will be accurate. While the bot work is underway, I've been watching each fac nom to make sure all the pieces are in the right place. I'm going to be traveling; if you want to tweak further to cover all the bases until the bot work is done, Gimmetrow can help. Eventually, the instructions will have to be rewritten, eliminating any mention of add, move or archive, as the bot will have done all of that in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the same phenomenon in the progression of Microsoft Operating systems: the "easier to use" something gets, the harder it is to understand. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

GrownUpAndWise[edit]

I was just looking into reporting that account as a disruptive SPA after that brutal post on BD's page but I see that you are already on top of it. --Justanother 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that kind of thing straight from the rest home, no problem. [/bishonen punches PDA savagely with a shaking hand, orderlies converge on her in a pincer movement.] Bishonen | talk 16:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Nurse Ratched arrives, quickly discovers where /bishonen has been hiding her meds, and casually injects her with a powerful tranquilizer while marking her chart for ECT tomorrow. Ratchet does a quick headcount and departs to care to other patients. /bishonen continues her careless slumber. At least until her insurance runs out. Sweet dreams. --Justanother 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah yeah. History delete complete (I hope), check it out. I have e-mailed the page owner. Minitrue 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
Looks good, thanks. Double plus good. --Justanother 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

Traditionally one tries to resolve things outside of arbitration before bringing it there. My attempt to talk to you about this was ignored. I am still willing to talk about this. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignored? You say the thing which is not. [57] Bishonen | talk 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I still see no impasse in our discussion that warranted arbitration, I responded quickly to that[58]. However it is done, and I will gladly deal with this matter in such a moderated environment. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas gang: active discussion moved to bottom of page[edit]

[59] Guess whose use page it was? It is not finished, I do not vouch for it, as you all know I have loads of these pages on the go at the same time, some take months to finish. There are times when I would love access to check user! All suggestions welcome Giano 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Bishonen | talk 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks Sweatpea! I didn't know if we were allowed ot do thatas others had edited since- amazing no one noticed the categories were al lackinng their final ] - I must put my banner on it now. Giano 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a limit to how much crap we have to put up with. The IP obviously knows it's bad behaviour, too. Look at its contribs! [60] Would a complete newbie know to go sniffing round userpages, and have such an idea? No. As you say, and as I mention in the revert edit summary, there's no knowing how correct your info is at this stage. The IP certainly can't know it. I checked the later edits, they were only corrections of stuff the IP had messed up, except for the addition of one category (which I put back). Bishonen | talk 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Interesting I placed one of my beware tags this is unreliable and unfinished on it on the 17th January [61] several days before the "Anon placed [62] on 24th January in mainspace! So Anon knew exactly what he was doing! Giano 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is Allston - I've never heard of it? Giano 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that having Checkuser would not help; this is too old, I'm pretty sure. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. Yes, I have informed myself, and it is in fact too old. Pity, that. I can't swallow this as being a a good-faith attempt to improve the mainspace — I think it's pure malice. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
The intentional pushing of a button, yes. And by someone who knows it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A random thought from the gallery: should the edits be deleted, as in essence they are a copyright violation as the edit by the IP doesn't attribute Giano as the author, as required by the GFDL? With Bramham Park, the only edits between the IP adding the info and Bish reverting it are minor fixes, and in essence they are all copyvios. Thoughts? Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) retreats back into the shadows and rejoins other people who watch Giano's contribs to his userspace to see what article will be the next FA :)
You mean I should delete all revisions after MortimerCat? That's a thought. I didn't think of the credit thing and the GFDL—I assumed Giano's work was in fact free to steal once he'd saved it anywhere at all on Wikipedia—I removed it only on the principle that it was unsourced and unreliable and the author had even said so. (I won't deny that I wanted to remove it, but the attribution angle didn't occur to me.) OK, I'll remove those suckers. I was lucky the case was so simple—I don't know what I would have done if somebody else had made substantial additions after the IP edit. Been petrified with indecision, probably. As for the next FA, I believe Giano has foresworn producing any more of those, after recent scarring experiences of WP:FAR.[63] Bishonen | talk 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for all the support here! I didn't realise people watched my uses space so much - I shall have to watch some of the less than flattering things I write about some buildings there. I'm not bothered too much about credit - but I do like a little acknowledgement sometimes. Also I do like to check my spelling and dates etc before going into mainspace. I'm afraid, you will all have a very long wait though for the next FA - you have seen the last of those. I write only in my style, in the way I think is correct for an encyclopedia. It would be a waste of time FACing my pages as I am reliably informed via the FARC page that they would not pass today. I refuse to ref such well known facts as "During the 17th century, many architects studying in Italy learned of Palladio's work" - as I have been asked to do on FARC. Finally, this classic comment here referring to my writing - ""In 1570 Palladio published his book I Quattro Libri dell'Architettura, inspiring architects across Europe." Inspired who? According to what researcher? Needs citation, otherwise is original research." made me realise that if I have to look up every obvious and accepted fact, then I would be unable to write an FA again anyway, as any spontaneity and freedom of expression in a page would be gone. They would become so dull no-one would ever bother to read to the end. While I am happy to ref a Prince of Monaco sleeping with his mother-in-law (because not a lot of people know that!) - and it makes a dull section on history page more interesting and fun - I am not about to become a "Master of the Obvious" referencing every well known fact just to please a few style and rule obsessive zealots . I feel wikipedia is so full of little stubs begging to be improved, and subjects on which nothing is written - we could all more profitably spend our time attending to these things, rather than attacking the better pages.
I know some other former FA writes such as Geogre and Bishonen share some of my views - which is a pity as they have produced some of the better and more intellectual FAs essential for a encyclopedia of any worth and value. I 100% believe references should be listed and I'm glad to see their are still some very good editors turning out first rate FAs but there is also a worrying amount of FAs on pop music and computer type things sourced entirely from the internet - not in my view a static medium. I would like to see more FAs sharing sources with not only the internet but also books with few pictures and 973 pages.Giano 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
("V=IR? Do you have a citation to this so-called Ohm's Law? I see that you have a link, but you need to have a citation, and then this 'R=V/I' needs another citation. You can't expect us to accept this original research.") Geogre 10:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly User: Ohm would probably have been banned from editing such pages, because of his insistance on own research and citing himself! Giano 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this. I think it's a really dirty thing to do. I ran checkuser on the IP at Bish's request, but it's too old. Raul654 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about that anymore, as you very well know Raul! Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been considering pushing an article of my own to FA level sometime in the next couple of months, and I have to say that what I have been reading about the FA reviewers demanding a footnote reference after every sentence is a serious deterrent to my wanting to do that. This page is probably not where I should be saying it, because I'm preaching to the choir here, but if our most motivated authors are choosing not to create featured content because of idiosyncrasies of the selection process, that is a serious problem. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there is nowher else to say it, unless you want to be shouted down, we are clearly in a minority - so we teo choices write FAs to the standards of others, write mere ordinary pages to out own standards. I am choosing the latter. Giano 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What they are doing, so far as I can see, is to produce their usual excellent articles, but they are just not bothering to ask for the shiny star to be affixed to them. But Medieval cuisine shows how it should be. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And what are you going to expect other people (who aren't experts in Medieval cuisine) to do when someone else edits your article, and follows your style of not citing enough? You don't own them, you know. Say you get three edits adding or changing information that seem reasonably likely; two are good, one is bad. How do you expect someone not yourself to know which of the three to revert and which to keep, if you don't give them sources to compare to? This is not just a hypothetical case, I just blocked an editor who had fun doing exactly that, inserting minor inaccuracies in uncited articles. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sneaky_vandalism - he was doing this since June 2006. If he had done this to something like Jenna Jameson, which is cited up the wazoo, his edits would be easily checked against reliable sources. As is, he got away with it for months. Do you really want him to be able to do that to your featured articles? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution really helps an article, it is not just policy but a good idea. It allows editors who do not know the subject to competently judge the merits of the contributions of others. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
(ed conf) For an example, a sentence in Medieval cuisine implies strongly that olive oil was a recommended drink! Is that vandalism? Don't know - maybe it is vandalism, maybe it is a poor turn of phrase, maybe it is even accurate. How is a humble mouse like myself supposed to know where to go to check the veracity of such a statement? Am I just supposed to take the article's word for it? Or am I supposed to read all 6 books mentioned in the references, with no indication of where to look, just in case one of them actually says that? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you could have tried to simply let your gaze descend to the closest footnote following that statement and checked those pages out. The footnote refers to 4 pages from Scully. Is it really that baffling that two paragraphs and a quote can be covered by such a modest reading assignment?
Peter Isotalo 00:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And since Bish's talkpage seems to be a more relevant place than the article talkpage to voice concerns about an article issue, here's the passage causing such consternation: "For most medieval Europeans, it [beer] was a humble brew compared with common southern drinks and cooking ingredients, such as wine or olive oil."
Peter Isotalo 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course obscure facts like that should be referenced, no one (certainly not me) is arguing otherwise - It is well known facts that can easily be confirmed if not already known and taken for granted that do not need to be cited. Anyway you can have FAs anyway you like them, because the rules no longer apply to me, I am free of FAs and over zealous rules invented often by people who have no need to apply them to their own work - I am talking about proper FAs not articles on "here today gone tomorrow" movie stars and pop songs written using 101 "here today gone tomorrow" internet sites each themselves of dubious quality, Giano 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, what if someone who's not an expert edits the article? Then it won't be reliable? What if they edit and don't give footnotes? Those arguments are, at their best, an argument against Wikipedia. After all, what do we do when someone edits the article on Bob Roberts? What do we do when someone edits the article on George W. Bush? Do we have to have footnotes to know the difference? Hey, what if someone edits the footnotes! What if "someone" inserts a bogus reference? Do you think it's even remotely possible to turn out a heavily footnoted article where the footnotes refer to fictitious books? This argument is against an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I also love the implication that someone is advocating not footnoting enough. In fact, I advocate appropriate references. My version of appropriate means some education in the reader. My version means no footnotes, all parentheticals. Your arguments are really, really off the mark and weak. Geogre 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say anon's argument is very much in line with the spirit of Wikipedia, and are rather compelling. Attribution is important. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We are going arownd in ever increasing circles, so I am going away, this is becoming boring, I'll come back when it gets interesting again. Giano 18:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for not keeping Giano properly amused. I can tell you what to do when someone adds a dubious claim to a well cited article. Check their edits against the citation. If they don't agree, the claim is wrong. That works equally well if the claim is bogus or if the source is. That way we don't have to worry whether the editor has a doctorate in theology or is merely diligent at using Google; we don't care if they're an expert, merely if their sources are. If they don't give a citation, that stands out as something that should be cited, tagged, or removed. Wikipedia is not reliable in and of itself, specifically because anonymous mice can edit - and don't think I'm saying that's a bad thing, that's the reason I am allowed to be here, after all. However, it does mean that proper attribution is the only thing we have that can give articles that reliability. That doesn't mean citing every sentence, but it does mean that when someone doubts a fact, it is only assuming good faith to believe that doubt, and be able to reference that fact. Frankly, assuming that every educated reader already knows that a 1570 book inspired architects across Europe is common knowledge is attributing quite a lot to common knowledge. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That is not the meaning of "common knowledge" on Wikipedia. Please see this userpage. Bishonen | talk 21:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I suppose I have more faith in the power of a college degree, but knowing that Palladianism came from Palladio only required a single Art History class for me. I would have known Palladianism anyway, a bit after my sophomore year, when I hit it in a History of England class. I would have learned it as a senior, if I hadn't learned it as a sophomore or a junion, when I took a class in Europe Between the Wars. I have "learned" that fact a dozen times in college. We do not cite everything. We do rely on good faith. Remember that WP:AGF refers to articles, not taggers or blocks or other things. In fact, Wikipedia was the gamble built on the assumption that more people wanted correct information than wanted to vandalize, and we are extremely susceptible to dishonest editors. We always will be. That's the nature of the game. If people want to read undergraduate research papers, they can, but that's not the standard of any encyclopedia. I find them unspeakably insulting. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is named after Heizenberg (note)" makes me want to slap someone. How stupid do they think I am? How stupid do they think readers are in general? How stupid are they that they had to go dig up a reference to assure themselves of that? Most articles have no citations. This is a good thing, generally. Those with unusual knowledge need references, but not stickypad citations. Geogre 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Everything must citable. That doesn't mean it needs to be cited. Some people have problem with this concept. As for what people think of our readers, my guess is that deep down, we all want the encyclopedia to be written for people like ourselves. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just looked in to see if the conversation had taken a perk, or anyone eloquent had looked in - No. So Bishonendearhart, do terminate this because it is going nowhere - we are all agreed we are done with FAs - can't be bothered with all the new malarky and claptrap far too stressful, and insulting to the intelligence. This moment in time heralds the beginning of a brave new era for Wikipedia the FAs of AnonEMouse (Jenna Jameson); LuciferMorgan's Christ Illusion and those of a similar mind-frame are obviously the way to go. Sadly my blood pressure these days does not allow for porn queens, and my interest in Christ is confined to mass and praying for eternal redemption - not that I'm admitting to a link between the two. I wish all the new FA writers well - but I can't agree with them, I shall not be joining them on the main page - I will be continuing in my own odd referencing ways - so I think all that needs to be said has been said. Giano 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • With respect, lowbrow or popular culture articles at FAs is not new. The very first archive of FA, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2003 and before, includes Leet, Have I Got News for You, Madonna (entertainer), and Sex Pistols. I have nothing but respect for the many FAs of Giano on European architecture, and Geogre on lesser known English wliterature, at a quick glance. I can only hope to eventually be as skilled and prolific. However, we need more good writing on any subject in the encyclopedia, including the ones that I or LuciferMorgan chose. If we have these subjects at all, they may as well be covered as well as possible, which, in the current way of doing things, means bringing them up to the standard of FA, which does seem to include citations. That is the current standard of the Wikipedia community, and it does have reasons behind it. (rephrased, with apologies) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 06:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here I am, up late to update DYK for the second time today (late both times because no-one else seems to want to do it, even though the next update page was ready to go ages ago) and what do I find? [64] This is not a featured article by any stretch, but it is a nice, concise article, culled from 4 (FOUR) consistent obituaries in broadsheet newspapers, and someone adds tags saying it does not have enough citations and needs cleanup.

Citations? CLEANUP?? Honestly. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have moderated my comment above, now the balance of my equanimity has been restored. Obviously it is possible to add refs after every sentence (see John Inman) but I really don't see the point in this case. The only mildly difficult fact in Peter Prendergast (artist) is that he was "recognised as the leading landscape painter in Wales" (by whom? when?) but that is cited (and, on reflection, I suppose I ought to cite "the biggest man-made hole in Europe, like Breughel's Tower of Babel, but in reverse"). But "cleanup"? How, for goodness sake? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - please don't stomp on me, Bishzilla!
Bishzilla stomp on tag spam.[65] bishzilla ROARR!! 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
As a point of reference, this article could be interesting to "the gang". Daniel Bryant 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to settle an argument with a friend about "dyke," so I looked at dyke. Citations all over the place and tags for "has no sources" to go with every one of them. On the other hand, there are articles like 1992 World Rally Championship season where there is only a box. What the hell is that? Is this a graphic novel or an encyclopedia? Why can't the "we need facts" jerks go beat up on the "here is a box and I cannot finish a sentence" yaboes? Utgard Loki 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC}
Oh Utgard, I do so agree with you. Giano 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I just go around all day, hitting the "Random" button. I recommend it to anyone. See what's really in Wikipedia. The #1 hit type is probably "footballer" -- usually either 2 lines or 2,000 -- and then "X is a place in Nation the end," and I'm not talking about those Census department things you see for US cities and towns, either. Then we get to the really stomach churning "This is a single by MinorBand released in RecentMonth and here is a picture of it." I released singles, an e.p., and an l.p. in a former band, and hell if I'd expect anyone to look them up here. What the heck could I say about them? "We released this, and it got played on about 110 radio stations, according to tracking reports. We sold all the copies we made of the first pressing, and that netted us a grand total of $280?" Bleck. Then again, I'm not a "footballer." Utgard Loki 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we have another truly delicious (fire-breathing, even) citation conflict brewing. Behold! That's what you get for mentioning an FA that doesn't have a citation per sentence...
Peter Isotalo 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aloan should have known better than to mention it in the first place - it is like putting up an advert for a candy factory next to a wasp's nest. It only encourages them. I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done - lead by example - Yes i know some of them do write and No, I don't want to be pointed to a page on porn stars, pop stars and fruits of said stars' labours - referenced entirely by equally dodgy internet sites Giano 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear - I didn't mean to poke the hornets nest. :( The people on the talk page need to read about the apocryphal Marie Therese/Marie Antoinette "cake" incident,[66][67] (brie?!) and watch the "I Know My Place" sketch.[68]

"I just wish they would write something interesting and show us all how it should be done" - quite. I just stumbled across Wilton House this morning. Such pearls before, um, I had better stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Be nice to people: reply to AnonEMouse[edit]

Section break retained, obsolete rant removed. Thank you, AnonEMouse. Bishonen | talk 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Continued[edit]

Just for chuckles, I think I should point out that I have never stated my credentials, and I hope to never do so. I have a job that some people assume implies those things, but I have said very, very little about that, wish I had said less, and Giano is an absolute cypher. He has never indicated so much that he has a job, much less what it is, and even less where he went to college and how long. The point being that, unlike quite a few people -- and particularly the people demanding to have us respect their authorit-ay, neither of us, and certainly not Bishonen, either, mentions credentials. We point to our work here at Wikipedia, which is a different thing, and then only, as Bishonen says, in exasperation. Since I arrived here, I've been annoyed by the pop obsessed younguns at Wikipedia shouting "amen" to each other. To me, this is a fight over whether we have articles on these subjects, not whether we have FA's on them. If we get articles on them, they're eligible if they can be properly discussed and analyzed. 90% of the time, they can't. Geogre 11:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither you nor Giano is listed at Category:Wikipedians with PhD degrees, so that's good. Utgard Loki 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) M.S.
Is there a category for "You will have to work out for yourself whether this Wikipedian knows anything about anything"? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What an enormity that is! A category populated by people using userboxes to self-identify their academic credentials is wrong on so many levels that one scarcely knows where to begin. I want an "it's the work, and it's always the work" box. Geogre 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I should have added a P.S., above. Yes, I am an elitest in many ways on content, but that's because I'm such a firm believer in the power of The People. Because I believe that the aggregation of humanity can achieve great things, I think it should never be allowed to settle for half-assed spitballs shot at the screen. I have never believed that anyone or anything "is owed" an article, nor that any contributor automatically has the right to write whatever she or he wishes. Everyone should write encyclopedic content, and I think everyone can. Therefore, "Mikey is a footballer with Slovak Spartan B Community Cultural Center Extension club" is bad. I would be insulting the author if I said, "That's all he can write and all he has to write." Geogre 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Taj Mahal[edit]

[69] Any ideas would be gratefully received. Cheers. --Joopercoopers 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Taj Mahal"..? Named after that Indian restaurant in Slough, wasn't it?[70] Bishonen | talk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Don't be so silly Bishonen, it was erected by the Indian Government (circa 1979) to provide a photo-shoot opportunity for the late Princess Diana, and also as a place for very unlovely, and usually ugly people to pose for what they imagine are romantic holiday snaps to bore their friends with at home. The latter should be banned from being photographed anywhere, in fact they should be made to put plastic buckets on their heads when leaving their houses - so they don't spoil other people's photographs taken for the architecture. Giano 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Ah! thank you O wise one. :-) Joopercoopers 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh... Cthulhu, right? Bishonen | talk 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Aaaahhh! Where Cthulhu? bishzilla ROARR!! 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Again[edit]

Having trouble with another admin - Mel Etitis - who thinks you are not allowed to delete things from your talk page. Rarelibra 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not entitled to remove comments by other users from article talk pages, if I understand this correctly. El_C 23:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This had to do with my own talk page. Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I stand collected. El_C 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen - are you saying now that I cannot delete the conversation from my talk page once it is complete? Because as far as I am concerned, it is complete, and there isn't anything derogatory or incorrect with me removing it... ? Rarelibra 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you can, but it's rude. That's not such a mysterious idea, is it? Some things are allowed but are nevertheless derogatory. You won't get punished for them, but they won't do anything for your reputation, either. Lots of things are like that in real life, right? For example, it's not illegal to speak unpleasantly to your neighbors, but it's not nice either. That's how it is with this. To uphold your reputation, to be pleasant, the optimal way to handle your talkpage is to leave stuff on it until you archive the whole page (or archive all but the most recent of it—that's what I do). Replying to messages is nice too. But none of us are always nice, I guess /looks through own talkpage, blushes slightly at sight of roaring dinosaur sockpuppet/, especially when the other person is being rude. I'd hardly bother to reply to a template, I must say. I might even remove it, with an informative edit summary. But it would take a lot before I removed a real human message. Bishonen | talk 01:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
That's where we differ, then. I have been military for 20 years... thus, I learn the "regulations" and what is "permissible" (plus, operate on the oh-so-popular "better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"). I'm quite sure that if I met someone in real life and had a discussion, then found out our "wiki" identities, I wouldn't change my real-life opinion of them (I see them as separate). But I am also a person who doesn't care if I "step on someone's toes" as long as I am within the rules. So whether or not it is "rude" is all within perception (but a permissible perception! that is why I kept attempting to correct the admin, and solicited your support). He tried to insist that I must keep it on my talk page, when I knew that I didn't have to. You see, my poison is that I am intelligent and operate on logic... thus, the neighbor example for me is that when my neighbor's dog took a dump in my lawn, it is logical that they should have just cleaned it up (I don't own a dog, so it is extremely obvious). I shouldn't have to knock on the door and ask nicely, nor remind them (as it is a duty of owning the dog)... so my answer? I put the crap in a plastic bag and attached it to their doorknob. Problem solved, and surprisingly no more dog crap in my lawn... am I worried about my "rep" with them? Actually, NO. Do looks of distaste bother me? NO. If that makes me rude, so be it (it isn't against the law to be so!). If I remove a human message it means (1) that I read it, (2) that I no longer need it (unlike what I have archived or saved currently - for projects or problems I am still trying to finish, or research, or work out), or (3) that I don't care for it. Does that make me rude? Maybe. I don't care what people think about what I do as long as it is within the law/rule. The times I am outside or violate, I am humble enough to "take my lumps" and admit my mistakes (as I have been blocked for 3RR, etc, of course). So if a guy with a short haircut comes up to you in Chicago and tells you to "put the &$*#! cigarette out" in a harsh tone while you are puffing away underneath a "no smoking" sign, well... it's probably me, and I don't care if you think I am rude. :) So don't take it personal, but I think the conversation is done and I will probably clean my talk page. :) Rarelibra 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That suits me. I've been in academe for x years, learning to go by logic and analogy, and I have some trouble with yours. You give several examples of how you think it's proper to be rude for a reason, yet round off your message with rudeness for no reason: telling me the conversation is done, as if I had been needlessly bothering you with my unsolicited opinion. That's more like telling a person chewing gum under a no-smoking sign to put their &$*#! cigarette out. I don't take it personally, you understand, it's just the logic of it. Bishonen | talk 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Point taken. :) Hope to chat with you soon... serious. Rarelibra 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Бинг-Банг[edit]

But can be found here. El_C 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... anything you say. Bing bang, dear. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Or, in the immortal words of Leslie Phillips, "I say! Ding dong!" -- ALoan (Talk) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How's your Hebrew today, ALoan? Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Fair to non-existent. But surely this is Cyrillic? Is there a kind of Russo-Slavonic Hebrew written thusly? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be בינג-באנג ! El_C 23:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Or, in Swedish, bork bork! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Reminds me of my children's school concerts Giano 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How wonderful that they're so talented! Bishonen | talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Is this some kind of Eurovision thing? "Oh, Бинг-Банг, bing bang, ding dong, a בינג-באנג, bork bork!" A sure-fire winner, or my name is not Mikhail Yosef Caneskisson-Smythe. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've listened to the song about 40,000 times now and I'm still not sick of it! El_C 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
<smacks self about the head> I am slow on the uptake, but have just read the relevant articles. The "boyakasha" should have been a give-away. Sigh. His cousin is a professor of psychology, you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the Korki Buchek entry is extremely informative. We can probably FAC-it-up with little effort. El_C 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't hold a candle to Swedish Dr. Bombay. Hear and see his masterpiece of inappropriate stereotyping Rice and Curry on Youtube! Oh noes a redlink. Anyway, the Dr. is according to Wikipedia also famous in Japan (I admit this was news to me) as Carlito. Bishonen | talk 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh, wow, Elsie, I can't believe it! Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is already on WP:FAC! You'd better go give your expert opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Keeping sewage out of the wine[edit]

Hi - I'm interested in any comments you (or anyone watching this page) have concerning User:Rick Block/Keeping sewage out of the wine. It's an essay, there's a talk page, I assume you know what to do. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion[edit]

Shortcut:

FYI. I'm posting here because we have orders from on-high to make this as widely known as possible, and this is a well-watched User talk. It's both a "proposed" and "already done" merger of V, NOR, and RS. It occurred, and then got held-up when Jimbo got involved. Long story. Five months of editing to slog through. But I'm sure of interest to people. Marskell 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have neither the time nor the energy to read all of that, can we just have a brief (very brief) synopsis of the outcome - altogether too tiresome and fruitless to join these discussions. Giano 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, as briefly as possible: Wikipedia:Attribution is a merger of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, originally suggested by SlimV, and subsequently worked on by a few hundred people. Reasons: "verifiability" is actually a misnomer; V (a policy) relied on the often sloppy RS (a guideline) for its explanations; NOR and V are outcomes of the same question, viz. "can this be attributed to a reliable source?"; one page instead of three will be enormously easier to manage.
Long story begins when Jimbo notices five days ago. Slim had informed him and the mailing list last October, but it was forgotten about apparently. Jimbo has requested: "a broad community discussion on this issue" (here) followed by "a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results" (here). Note, ATT is not meant to change policy at all, but to make it more concise and maintainable. Marskell 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"V - RS - NOR - ATT" somebody please explain to me what he is talking about. Giano 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's the duty of the hostess. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:ATT are shortcuts to pages in Wikipedia space, namely Vandalism Verifiability, Reliable Sources, No Original Research, and Attribution. It's quite touching to see the country cousin trying valiantly to get his bearings at the party! Bishonen | talk 15:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't bother to read all of those things, if one wants to stay up to date one would have to read them allevery day, as someone is always tinkering about with them, then I would not have time to write anything. Just tell me when it is all sorted out, then I will shout if I don't agree. I never use hiroglyphics or symphonics or whetever daft English word it is to describe all this initial talk Giano 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I have just linked the shortcuts at first mention. Marskell 16:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As ever, the questions are in the uses made of policy, not the wording. If someone goes along to say "all articles without references should be deleted," that's a huge mistake and a massive case of dickishness (esp. when there are thousands of really, really, really, really, really offensively bad articles that wouldn't be caught because, while they say that Fubbies Magic Pills are the greatest things ever, they link to Fubbies Magic Pills website or Mikey's Fan Favorites Web Guide or someplace...or even a spam site). OR is not lack of sources. OR is OR, and lack of sources is lack of sources. Instead of spending :30 to go on the web to research "Oh yes, it's real, so we should KEEP this article that says 'Timmy is a cricket player'," let's spend that time getting educated and evaluating sanely and carefully the inherently POV and blind reviews. Let's, while we're at it, not go around fact tagging articles that say what is found in every reference. Geogre 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
"All articles without references should be deleted". User:Worldtraveller actually advocates this exact idea on his user page: "Delete all articles which are unreferenced, six months from now."
"OR is not a lack of sources." Indeed. I like the latest sum-up on this: "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed." (One of Slim's nuggets.) Of course, what happens in practice is indeed more important than what the pages say; policy should reflect best practice, not general practice. Over the now nearly six months of debate re WP:ATT, putting to rest the descriptivist argument ("well hey, people already cite Usenet, so why shouldn't policy let us cite Usenet?") was one of the hardest parts. At one point, people were considering writing a weakened exception for pop culture articles into the policy...*shudders*. Marskell 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
in my earliest wiki-days way back in May 2004 (a life-time ago) I used to write a quick page to fill a red link and never add references (it was not required) unless it was what I think of as a "proper page" - and I still stand by every word I've ever written, and if I could remember all the pages could easily find references to support them. However, I expect somewhere in all those pages I have given the odd architect the wrong Christian name, or have a date a couple of years out. I do not think those pages should be deleted - but I know what I am talking about (said modestly) a lot of editors here do not; and that is a problem. I hesitate to disagree with Geogre but I can see where "World" is coming from on this one. BUT let us be quite clear I do NOT think every verb needs to be linked directly to a page number - because that is meaningless. I frequently (Hannah springs to mind) use reference books that were printed 80 or 90 years ago in very small numbers - how easy would it be to cite "Crewe Vol III p 245" who could hope to check it - without the help of a very flexible credit card? (Incidentally there were only two volumes of that work) - so my point is there always has to be an element of trust, which is the reason I was so angry about the "Essjay affair" - otherwise we are going to have to say if a reference book is not currently in W H Smith it is ineligible for citing on wikipedia. I don't know the answer - and if I do, I don't like it because it will spell the end of wikipedia being the !encyclopedia anyone can edit". I post this here because my days of arguing are over, no one ever agrees with me anyway Giano 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(butting in uninvited...) Giano, I completely agree, and your experience mirrors mine exactly. Indeed it looks like we joined around the same time (me in April), and my earlier articles are still unreferenced, though I stand by every word, most of which is pulled from books in my library which I accumulated while getting my (verifiable!!!) doctorate. I don't quite know where to jump in on the ATT discussion. Bishonen, is your experience similar? A lot of us did a lot of writing three years ago which is still quite good, should not be deleted, and will be tedious to reference ... but I'm going to start doing it soon. Cheers all, Antandrus (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as Worldtraveller's User page goes, I'd sum it up as an idea to light an enormous fire under Wikipedia's ass. I appreciate the sentiment, even if I disagree with the specifics. Regarding Giano's sentence on trust: here I agree fully. There's an enormous element of trust in other users required to judge an article under review (at AfD or FAC or whatever). I don't think it healthy or unhealthy—it's inevitable, and I see it as one element of RewardReputation that the project requires. But it's fraught with a lot of difficulty given the nature of Wikipedia and it's emphasis on "anyone." Essjay is the obvious example, but you can find a smaller example everyday. Antandrus has a "verifiable" doctorate. Well, I don't know that. I don't know who Antrandrus is. S/he doesn't know who I am. (Not to be picky Antandrus, just using an example in front of me :). Marskell 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My view is that all pages should have a list of references which will verify the facts on the page. If a fact is contraversial, outlandish or a very new theory then a specific cite to its source should be made. The Pope is a Roman Catholic; William I fought at Hastings in 1066 and Palladio was an unfluential architect do not need to be specifically cited, just a book which agrees with those facts mentioned in a reference section at the foot of the page is sufficient. Credentials for the anonymous are meaningless so lets not have them at all. Giano 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the books, Giano. (Some ways up. As usual, everybody and their aunt has already posted by the time I've written some reply to somebody, in this case principally to Antandrus.) Some of the people advocating coverall inline citing seem to assume that that would mean any editor will then be able to check any fact with a mouseclick. I don't have any sources as exclusive as yours, but you may remember I've written an FA which is principally verified through books written in a language spoken by 9 million people. That page contains quite a few counter-intuitive and surprising facts. They're cited, yes, but, in practice, nearly all readers are going to have to take what I say on trust anyway. And that's with me following all the rules. Anyway, no, I don't think I'll weigh in, Antandrus. I'm too slow and laborious a writer to do any good in a big free-for-all. It really bugs me when I spend half a day penning (keyboarding) a paragraph, and 15 minutes after I post it, somebody like geogre replies with two screens of much more cogent arguments... grrrrr... ROARRR... where Tokyo!? ... sorry, where was I? I appreciate Marskell turning up to sing a siren song [/me ties self securely to mast], but I'm trying to write a sandbox article here, and there are enough interruptions without diving into the Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Not planning to FAC it, no... I'm tired of FAC. It's not so much verifiability issues in my case, as the tone on FAC altogether. (One reviewer, when I took issue with what seemed outright hostility, assured me that it was nothing personal, simply the FAC culture nowadays!) And the joys of "having" a FA — in the sense of being scolded for laziness if you don't "maintain" it, and scolded for "ownership" if you do — are definitely overrated anyway. Being the main contributor to an actually controversial article, which mine are not, must be far worse in this regard, too — it's got to be "You don't own it, you know!" and "The main contributor hasn't bothered to maintain it!" all day long. Altogether, writing FAs can too easily turn you into a common criminal in the eyes of others. How many times has Giano, who never even mentions his massive FA contributions, been told that he expects, nay, demands, a "free pass" (pah!) because of them? Nice little wrinkle, that, don't you think? Anyway, an article's an article, with or without the star. If it's good, it's a good contribution to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

Could not agree more, at the end of the day, a FA is only a FA because a load of people (many of whom never write a FA) say it can be, likewise it can be FARCd because the same people say it can't. I an tired of aruging with these people let them run the FA side of things if they want to. At the end of the day anything on Wikipedia that is good is good and anything less is usually appalling. Like many people I can recognise the good pages without having to look for a silly little star - so who needs FAs? Giano 22:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If, as we recognize, it's all a matter of trust anyway (and it is), and if a number of us from the old days routinely wrote true and good articles and didn't try to thumb through the books we've read to cite them, then we're up against the fundamental bullflop of it all. The people waving the flag of "verifiable or die" don't know the subjects and so cannot understand when a thing needs verification and when it doesn't. An article on a massively well understood subject like plot would be stupid to cite, unless it is reporting a fringe understanding or the historical development. Every reference in the world will say that it is the connection of actions in a narrative. Every reference in the world will say that it is a structural element of narration. However, people who have never read a single reference in the world will ask for a citation, and in the process they might miss it when the author goes off on a Roland Barthes 1956 Structures of the Short Story jag -- which should be cited, as it is a part of Structuralism. My point is that if it's just "they say you can, so you can," "they" need to be worthy. If they're not, they'll demand when they should be quiet and be quiet when they should demand. They'll miss the made up print reference. They'll have no sense of what is credible and what is not. When brand new information gets written, our New Page patrollers sniff the air. "Jimmy is a successful businessman" can be speedily deleted or not based on how likely, how credible it is, not whether Jimmy's fan put in a citation or not. If the patroller is uncertain, he goes to Google. The point is that every part of Wikipedia works by credibility, interrogation, and trust in tension, and it depends upon a dynamic balance between them. It only works with educated judges, though, whose education is up to the matter being reviewed. If that's Jimmy's business, the level of education necessary for a valid judgment is one place, and if it's Hollaback Girl's prescience, it's somewhere else, and if it's an FA on Heisenberg, it's another place again. No one minds, so long as they feel that the readers have sound judgment to tell good from bad. I have no confidence in those judges most active at FA right now to know good from bad academic material, as they have demonstrated ignorance of language and content. Geogre 03:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. "Willy hears you. Willy don't care." Ok. Well, in case what I said, above, is obscure, I will try one of my many "essays" to try to make my position clearer. It's persuasive, or at least I'm convinced, so perhaps it'll have the same effect on others at some point. Geogre 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I Willy? The only user talk I watch is my own; I come back to others' when it occurs to me to do so. If you'd like a response from Willy, please post to him directly. Marskell 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are bound to know[edit]

I've asked the owneres of some websites for permission to upload some images of country houses - so they have to fill in a form or something - anyone know what I am supposed to do to prove they have given permission? Giano 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody answered this query in all this time? Sheesh. That's not the way the salon is supposed to work. Image copyright is my least favorite subject, sorry. But yes, to the best of my belief there is something like a form to a fill in, and there are right ways and wrong ways of doing it... to make sure the permission sticks, for good, I suggest you contact a Commons admin who knows what's what. Raul comes to mind. Or, hmm... Jkelly. Zscout370. Or check out this list of Commons admins to look for people you have confidence in. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry - I have been looking at masterpieces, like Hairy Maclary (from Donaldson's Dairy). I wonder how many of these literary gems I have been overlooking for all this time. I see it has been eviscerated, with learned contributions by the sainted Filiocht cast to the four winds. See also general moan on User:Geogre's talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Wikistress![edit]

(tries to think about kittens) The Land 09:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anythingspossiblepolicyiswhatwedo. YoufedupwithFACtoohuh? Bishonen | talk 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Can I buy you a space bar? ;) The Land 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

TheideaofwritinglikethisistoexpresswikistressI'dratherhaveaMarsbar. I'verepliedtoyourquery here. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC). ExpressandevokeImean. :-P Bishonen | talk 10:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
A w(h)ine bar? I'll have a Gallo Gallon. Geogre 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The plaintive cry of the last standing deletionist[edit]

So, can anyone assess this other than me and the author of the article? It's about Brooks Landing, which is a shopping mall. Diff is here. Utgard Loki 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wh-wh- ?! Hey, buddy, I am the archangel of deletionism, so don't flatter yourself. :-) Looks like somebody got there already. The old "it's a mall, but it's the first one in [town] and so it's notable" argument don't even waddle, much less fly. Geogre 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, being an archangel, you would be a flying deletionist, so Loki could well be the last standing one. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the pettifoggery, but your description of the archangels' physical etc. properties might be a little oversimplified (see Angel#Appearance_of_angels). Not that I'd give a flying whiff... Oh and for the record, should there ever be a contest for the title of last deletionist standing, be it known that my candidature stands eternally. But I digress. Kosebamse 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tempt mortals into deletionism, so perhaps I'm the heresiarch of deletionism? I suppose user:Wile E. Heresiarch gets that title. Umm, guide to the dead and dying articles on garage bands and shopping malls? As for whether I have my feet on the ground or not, that depends on the time of day and which of my pills I've taken. (Why walk, when you can flyyyyyy, man?) Geogre 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then how about Swedish War of Liberation getting "cite" tags slapped on it. Isn't the information in there known to everyone who has ever cracked the spine of a book and looked for it? Do we need to cite information on things recorded by every source? Utgard Loki 17:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that template with an argumentative edit summary.[71] Now give me a vandalism template, please. {{blatantvandal}} will do. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Without arguing the point of whether they're required, hopefully they're useful. [72] --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How is that useful? How useful is it for one encyclopedia to refer to another? Why not just use flippin' Google Books, if that's your goal? How many citations do we need for 1492 sailing the ocean blue? People need to read and consider the things where a citation is actually needed as opposed to where a tag could go. By throwing these things around like popcorn in the theater, we make the tag meaningless and leave ourselves with nothing to reach for when an article is actually making controversial and outlandish claims. I do Random Page all day. I see idiot articles about Mikey Greatest of All Kids and it has a "cite" tag on it. That should be a speedy delete (A7), but it has the "cite" tag. So, is the need for citations on that the same as the need for citations on Battle of Shiloh? If you want a concrete example of a Mikey with "cite," I can give you one. Utgard Loki 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Because those articles are more thorough than ours is, so someone who wants more information now has a specific place to go. "Go crack the spine of a book" is not very specific. I reached over and cracked the spine of a book just now, and didn't find anything at all about this war, it's hardly WWII. I needed to be guided to the right book. Those articles have actual bibliographies, which, again, ours doesn't. I can't just copy and paste the bibliographies out of them, because I haven't read those books, but I can refer to it indirectly this way, because I have read the articles. Eventually our article will include all the information in those articles, including bibliographies. Until it does, I humbly propose these links are useful, and I'm not saying anything about Mikey or 1492.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there has been a real zeal to put "cite" and "pov" tags on things. I saw a saint article that had a "this is not written with a neutral point of view" tag on it. Well, um, it is hagiography. The moment you have a hagiography, you kind of have a POV inherent in the job title. Then big obvious bits of history are getting "cite your sources" on them. It's so easy to apply a tag and so hard to read an article, I guess. Utgard Loki 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Back to deletionism. I think the articles themselves, like Melf, do the best job of persuading. Utgard Loki 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

misunderstanding[edit]

Hello Bishonen | talk, I'm sorry to have to mention the unpleasant misunderstanding we had over the RfC but it's come up elsewhere and would like your opinion before I do anything. I nominated myself on WP:RFA and the deleted RFC came up. I gave a broad outline without mentioning any names except mine and Justanother. It's beginning to look like more information will be needed, would you mind giving your perspective or allowing me to mention your username? Thanks, and once more I'm sorry to have to bring this up. Anynobody 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anynobody. Bishonen | talk 07:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism Help[edit]

Bish, I've got a vandal hitting Zuiderzee Works repeatedly. It's minor vandalism, but vandalism nonetheless. The user is User:Car121. Tack så mycket! Bo-Lingua 04:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bo, I'm just rushing off to catch my train and will be away from the computer all day. I'll take a look tonight, unless somebody else has taken care of it by then. Best, Bishonen | talk 08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Oh, I see that was a short-term vandalism-only account, no reason to muck about with those. Indefinitely blocked. I can do that while brushing my teeth. Bishonen | talk 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Tack! Bo-Lingua

Sand[edit]

Did you notice that it's the anniversary of New Sweden -- the first Swedish settlement in the US, 1637? The articles alright, but that second map has me somewhat appalled. I can't let young viewers see it, as it looks like the Dutch were very happy to see U.S. so to speak. Anyway, the last sentence of the article may or may not be relevant to you. Geogre 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Alf walks by and notices the map, looks up Siggy's 'phone number and hurridly starts dialing on behalf of the uploader, a ẁorried expression grips his face.
Love the role that New Amsterdam plays in that map. Utgard Loki 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You can always modify it, but you know, it is a north-south river and they probably only claimed land to a certain extent on either side. You could always cross-hatch it so it doesn't look as ... virile? Bo-Lingua 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe the childishness of youse guys. Vandalize articles with your favorite body parts in your free time, do you? Bishonen | talk 19:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey, I didn't do it! I just saw it. I can't help it if the Dutch thrust inland in such a way. Geogre 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes a settlement is just a settlement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm revert warring, soon, probably[edit]

Hopefuly, with Kim's help. Watch me go down in flames, soon, probably, not, yet, not, yet, not, yetti. El_C 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree[edit]

Per username choice and editing issues...I have to agree with your rationale here! I saw his odd edit to the talkpage of another newbie(?) in the form of a welcome message at the bottom (easter egging Democracy to Dictatorship, etc.) as another clue. Thanks for protecting wittle ole me.--MONGO 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't say, I didn't see that. I guess I never properly appreciated the hate-mongering potential of easter eggs before. Bishonen | talk 11:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
About a year and a half ago, I made a joke about someone being really silly...or something like that. Best wishes!--MONGO 12:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If the traditional easter egg is deprecated, how about a life-size chocolate Christ on the cross? My Sweet Lord! -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

...sans loincloth... The Rambling Man 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is being displayed in Nieuw Amsterdam, I understand... Hare hare. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tip for RfA report[edit]

If you want to override the formatting on the rfa report box you can do something like this:

{| align=left !important;
|{{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}
|}
<div style="clear:left;"></div>
 

That is what I am doing User:HighInBC#Current_RfAs. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ok, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Or keep it in my icebox, rather, in case of future requirements. It happened to be formatted for sitting just where I like it right now, in the whitespace to the right of the TOC. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

personal attacks[edit]

Here is the "in a nutshell" summing up of the policy on no personal attacks.

How can a section called "Davkal" posibly be anything other than a forum for discussing me rather than content I have added. It is not even called "Davkal's recent edits" or "davkal's POV" but simply "Davkal". That is, we are now going to comment on the the subject "Davkal", ie. a contributor. And this is clear breach of the policy on personal attacks. Please refraion from such attacks. Davkal 11:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah, alack, alack! Betimes an account is editing destructively or tendentiously and administrators have to soothe, counsel, or intervene with such an account holder. Therefore, a discussion of a person's online habitus is necessary from time to time, and if the goal is to best and most peacefully manage rather than "attack," there is the fulfilling of policy mandate. Geogre 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I get it entirely, but this is obviously an April Fool's joke, right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would say that is either a joke, or a major misunderstanding of the NPA policy, that is not even uncivil, much less a personal attack. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up (now lay back down)[edit]

Hi. Just want to mention that your deletion of the RfC on me is referenced at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. I am really sorry to be back over there but I do not think that I should leave this latest bit of weirdness unaddressed. Again, this is just so you know; you can fluff up your pillows and have another sip of juice. Later. --Justanother 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have commented. Geogre, Brad, this might interest you too. Bishonen | talk 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, one can hope this is the end of it. It all started with what I now see as a troll on where he tried to engage me on my talk page over Hubbard's military career, something I have very little interest in. User talk:Justanother/Archive7#"Lessons" response to Anynobody (moved from article talk). He got zero traction there and had to bow out but had more luck engaging me at Barbara Schwarz as that article has little place here and is a blatant example typical example (there are blatant examples, she is simply typical) of what these soapboxers do (whoops, there's mine) and also coming to my talk page to engage me and really get me going, User talk:Justanother/Archive4#What are you saying, exactly?. In the end, just a troll. Anywho, thanks. --Justanother 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (add 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

User talk:Gwen Gale[edit]

Bishonen, small request of you. User:Ryulong seems to have inadvertently semi-protected User:Gwen Gale's talk page. He protected it for 3 hours but that was at 10:57 and it's now 15:06 and still protected... can you look into this? Thanks. (Netscott) 15:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks unprotected now. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
She's sent me e-mail saying she can't edit it. (Netscott) 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Could be a browser issue, esp. if she uses Internet Exploder. They often stop really trying once they get a result 3 times. She should hard refresh, close the browser and come back, etc. If she's got an AOL rolling IP, of course, all bets are off. Geogre 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Apologies[edit]

You are right and I am squirming with embarrassment: my only explanation is that is was St. Patrick's Day and I was with some rowdy friends who have been following the various WikiDramas and I made the stupid mistake of allowing them access to my password after imbibing in Murphy’s Irish Stout. Although I did not personally type those words, it was still my fault in having very poor judgment of who I should give personal and privileged information; must always be careful who you choose to trust. I apologize; mea culpa, etc.GrownUpAndWise 04:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hthc[edit]

I was about to put the Uw-test2 template on Hthc's talk page. If someone puts vandalism like that and it is a first offence, what template do you put on? I have just started with Lupin's vandalism tool, as i do not have enough edits for VandalProof Themcman1 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They blanked substantial parts of two articles—most of Gay, in fact. It's a first offence, well, that's true, but it's also pretty much the first thing they do at all. The account has only seven edits altogether. That makes a difference, and I definitely wouldn't go with simply {{Uw-test}}. I guess the person lives in Truro... lol. Your notion of test 2 sounds all right to me. I think I may have gone a little overboard with the {{blatantvandal}}. That's assuming that the Truro edits are good, and not sneaky vandalism. It's hard to tell, all the way from here. Bishonen | talk 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Why do the vandals attack the article on the author of Trivia (poem) and The Beggar's Opera? He was a man much more sinned against than sinning -- gentle, erudite, clever, and the most done-by man in the epoch (excepting the really famous cases like Christopher Smart and, one supposes, Richard Savage). Geogre 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it![edit]

That thing Geogre said, "Willy hears you. Willy don't care." That's from Grade School Confidential, an episode of The Simpsons. Edna and Skinner proclaim their love over a loudspeaker, and Willy, the only one around, responds with the line. I.e. "I've got work to do." Took a while. Utgard Loki 16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Afternoon tea...[edit]

ALoan in pensive mood, plays his biwa.

... was it? May I be so bold as to make a request for Earl Grey, hot - Lady Grey, if you have it. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ALoan is the beau in the blue coat, friends. But is Bishonen the beauty in red, or the motherly body on the right bringing in the tray? You be the judge, and remember, this is a Japanese tea ceremony. Bishzilla will be along to stomp on it shortly. ALoan, look, "Beau" is a specialist twelve-string guitar player, do something! Bishonen | talk 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
My dear Bishonen. <bows deeply> Would you like me to play something suitable on my biwa? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of people here already, perhaps the Frühstück sur l'herbe should become a Fête champêtre? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's me in the corner. Geogre 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Behind the screen? Most wise. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Another pop culture reference? I think Geogre is taking a cue from our new overlords and deciding to become an expert in culture of the last ten minutes (or years). Utgard Loki 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I liked the video's story better than Stipe's. I've never been a good juggler. Geogre 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We have new overlords? Again? Well, at least we'll know what's in the sandwiches. I too have bowed to the demand for pop culture items: Call-girl Sally stabs top toff in London nightspot! Yomanganitalk 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool! Now, just change her name to Paris or Courtney and her residence to Laguna Beach, and you'll have a featured article! You'll need to write to her publicist for a more revealing photo, though, as that one seems to be in black and white. (Since the parasites have drained the blood from every academic article, the only ones to go by are the ones they don't look at, which are the popular meme anime flash sprite fad starlet ones.) Utgard Loki 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you place writers might note the charming warning about Cremorne Gardens, London. Utgard Loki 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost lost for words. I've removed it, but I've been inspired I've come up with my own template which I shall add at the top of all articles mentioning elephants (...or any that look like they might do in the future...or link to articles that mention elephants): Yomanganitalk 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Great tag. Now we need one for camels. Is it dromedary or Asian? "This article mentions arid regions and does not specify which type of camel goes there." Geogre 10:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention rhinoceroses - black? white? Indian? Javan? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I double dog dare you to apply that to an already-draped bio article (i.e. one that They have already tagged for facts, references, coordinates, tone, voice, theme, imagery, etc.). So there! Geogre 11:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I am four days too late, really. The trick would be finding somewhere appropriate. Perhaps Jack Sheppard - This article is about a person who was executed, but does not state what they ate for their last meal.? (We know he drank some sack along the way, but did he have some pork scratchings too?) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Those things have been appearing like wildfire over the wiki. Easier to tag that an article "needs" coordinates than actually add them, of course. The appearance of motion without any movement.

In other news, apparently I need to discuss removing an unsourced claim that a school is "one of the finest and most prestigious educational institutions in the world" and was founded by a "renowned" Canadian educator (who has no article).[73] (Which also deletes my formatting improvements, to boot.) -- ALoan (Talk) 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Wikimood suggestion[edit]

A wave from the Doctor. El_C

How about Levée? [signed: no]

Needs more head adjustors. El_C 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Mind the deportment there, El C. Good idea, The Land, very fetching. I had a more obvious option in mind for the next salon mood, I confess. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Levée and levity - I have always wondered about that smartly dressed thin chap with crossed legs and ?curlers in his hair, sipping his ?tea... Anyway, I shall be Silvertongue - would you care to attend the masquerade, m'dear? Some more madeira? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Him? That's one of our youngest admins. I think those are dreadlocks, and the Duchess is going to pitch into his lap if he's not careful. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
He might like that, although he may lean the other way, hmm. The plump ?Italian chap on the left looks like he is catching flies... -- ALoan (Talk) 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess you didn't finish the Uglow bio ALoan, she tells you all about the thin chap: A fop in curl-papers points his toe and sips his chocolate, an exaggeratedly over-perfect illustration from Lairesse, who specified that it was correct to hold things lightly and "in appropriate instances to extend one's little finger elegantly". The plump Italian chap is a castrato, so perhap caught something in his flies earlier. Apparently the Countess B has been identified as Mrs Lane-Fox. Have I outed your true identity, Bishonen? Yomanganitalk 23:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't finish the bio..? Anything you say. And you tell me, don't most admins wear curl-papers and rouge ? Bishonen | talk 00:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
I've cleverly retrofitted my statement with an ALoan (they are useful for many things). I have no need for curl papers as I never go out without my periwig. It gives me a judicial look when I block new users for arguing with me. Yomanganitalk 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Iritating.[edit]

I manage to miss putting quotes around one word, and I get jumped on? Cheers, Ben Aveling 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss putting quotes? You said focussing on irritating users was a beneficial action. I don't see how quotes would have helped. What you said was nothing like what you say now. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Ah, I see what you mean. Bish, I changed a sentance that was talking about problem users in an attempt to make clear that it was not just problem users that were being targeted. By leaving in place too much of the old sentance, the result was not what it was supposed to be. Well, oops. You saw the rest of the changes that I made in the same edit. You know I was around when it all happened, and that I put an oar in. Did you really think that I would have suddenly changed my mind and decided that the targetting that happened was beneficial? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a beef with me, Ben, but I don't quite understand what it is. If your edit didn't say what you meant it to, don't you think it benefited from my rewrite? But I was mainly focused on adding stuff, that the text (not yours, but the original text) swept under the carpet IMO. For instance I figured it was wrong to mention the kickban powers of the ops without mentioning that they had been abused. (I still don't see much point in mentioning them at all—the whole thing is rather too detailed IMO—but if they're in there, it shouldn't be in an uncritical way.) Heck, I'd been around rather more closely than you, you know? I'd been kickbanned for nothing, mobbed, I'd had the "pleasure" of hearing my absent friends trashed as bad users and as a net minus for the wiki. (By the chanops themselves.) No, I didn't think you suddenly changed your mind, but I couldn't tell you'd written the opposite of what you meant, either——I'm sorrry, but that sort of thing is hard to know, and generally clear only to the writer. I never expected you to resent having me input more accurate information and/or fixing up your sentence that (as I now realize) said the opposite of what you meant. I still don't understand it. Would you agree my edit was an improvement? Did you notice Tony Sidaway immediately reverted my version back to yours, and does that suggest anything to you? What is the problem? Please be more explicit. Was my edit summary tactless ("jumped on" you?) If so, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant to be. I just wanted to explain my changes. Bishonen | talk 12:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
The page is vastly improved. I was actually a bit hesitant to edit it in the first place, because I didn't know if I would be opening a can of worms. But I didn't want to leave it as it was either. The problem I had with your edit summary, which you did direct at me ("Ben, ...") was that it seemed to stop just short of accusing me of lying ("truth trumps NPOV..."). Now when some random troll accuses me of something, that's all so much water off a duck's back. But when someone I respect has a go at me, well, it hurt. Anyway, shit happens. Apology offered, apology accepted. Let's move on. ObOffTopic: Have been reading "White Death", Robert Edward's book on the Russian/Finish war; very interesting. Cheers, Ben Aveling 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Pen Image Error.[edit]

File:Lepen74.jpg. Bish; this is doctored. Can we get it deleted? Bo-Lingua 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (see my comments and crosslink on the talk page.)

Clearly doctors have been involved in fitting him with the eye patch. (Is the image in use anywhere? I like to nuke things, but if someone is using it as a userpage joke, it might be protected as parody.) Geogre 11:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's a good fake if it is one: it looks dodgy but the pixels match up very nicely if you zoom in on it. Le Pen claimed that he had lost his left eye when he was savagely beaten during the 1958 election campaign. Testimonies suggest however that he was only wounded in the right eye and did not lose it. He lost sight in his left eye years later, due to an illness. Yomanganitalk 11:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet in the pictures of him on the french wiki, his eyes seem just fine. If it's correct and not doctored-up, that's just fine. It just looked QUITE dodgy to me, and since there _is_ a campaign on and he _is_ a major candidate, I thought we should be careful, after all. Bo-Lingua 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

It's a lovely little armoire for my archives. Thanks for that. Geogre 11:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, glad you like it. I found it on the web and uploaded it to Commons especially for you! Feel free to exchange it for the chest of drawers here on my page, or any image you like: if you take a look at the new code that has appeared on your page, you'll see exactly where the image goes. The box will adjust itself automagically to any image, so there's no fiddling. Why not try it out with the photo of scary gun-wielding geogre guarding his valuable records? Bishonen | talk 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Is there any image of a gun-wielding Geogre that isn't scary? Utgard Loki 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good edit[edit]

I like it. ElinorD (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, icecream lady! Now we'll have to see if other people think it's enough to say it once. Would you like be the young lady in the liseuse in the wikimood picture? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
I like it too, more readable, I re-added a little bit of info that got left out though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tad102[edit]

thanks for filling me in on that one Bishonen. What intrigues me is how on earth did you come across the message that I left at User talk:Tad102? If anything that shows some pretty dedicated "user contributions" sleuthing there!

Do you know Tad102? Having a look at his log and edits worries me a bit - he might be harming the project unintetionally. First was the unecessary blanking of Wikipedia when he really should have just removed the vandalism. But also there is a whole series of "Fair use" images and screen captures that he has uploaded [74]. These appear to have almost universally attracted criticism for unjustified Fair Use criteria but this fact didn't seem to stop him. In fact, he appears to get quite angry when anyone does anything he doesn't like (such as the message you linked to me) and also here.

If you do know this guy, could you go through some of the relevant policies and norms of behaviour with him - starting with WP:CIVIL? Thanks. Witty lama 00:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Är du svensk? Om ja, var bor du - jag är i Lund... Witty lama
Svarat på din sida. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
But your english is very good - even for a swede. My guess is that you weren't raised in Sweden, am I correct? As for the followup edit to wikipedia, I don't think that had anything to do with any vandalism, it was just the removal of that, admittedly, rather strange box at the top of the article. By the way, could you go and block this guy: User:DAGAME01? His edits have been consistent vandalism to Wrestling pages with a general theme of adding false info about John Cena into articles [75]. Thanks. I would do it myself, but not being an admin makes that kind of hard :-P
don't worry about the blocking - User:Alphachimp beat me to it! Witty lama

Minor Template:vww Note[edit]

Minor reminder: You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" for linking into Template:vww. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cueing Mortal Kombat theme . . .[edit]

Thanks[edit]

File:OldThinker.jpg


The file above is being considered for deletion. See files for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

Thanks a lot for mentioning my unblock request on AN/I. Otherwise I fear that I might have waited a bit longer (see image) --Justanother 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Very nice self-portrait there, JA. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. I really do need to put on some weight. --Justanother 11:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! --Irpen
Oh, wow, they're awesome. Thank you very much, Irps. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC).


Nice![edit]

Hi Bishonen, nice work on the Personal branding article, looks like that was just what it needed! --09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks, Joanne. I do like to keep these fluff pieces short! Bishonen | talk 09:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Unsolicited opinion: isn't "Employee Branding" outlawed by the UN Declaration on Human Rights? I don't want my flesh singed by my employer, because I change jobs a lot, and I'll run out of room. (Oh, and the article is written in authentic business gibberish and high cant. It's incomprehensible, unhelpful, and likely illicit.) Don't fence me in, and don't brand me once I'm in the corral. Utgard Loki 12:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
{{sofixit}}, dear Henry. I bet writing your comment above took longer than doing a brisk enstubbification. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, but they have not granted me the flamethrower, so I cannot fix it. Remember: fire is the cleanser. Utgard Loki 13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not joking: I honestly can't figure out what employee branding is. I know it's not marking their flesh with a hot iron, but, beyond that, it seems to be that... that... workers become known as "X workers" and therefore have a corporate ethos so strong that all who work there are subsumed into the ideology and bear it upon their general identity. I suppose that happens, although I don't think it happens as any conscious strategy from the bosses or the workers. "IBM guy" and "Bell Labs guy" used to exist, but I don't think IBM or AT&T meant them to. Or else it means... uh... something else, but it was so circuitous that I honestly couldn't grasp it. I like to learn things. Utgard Loki 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Bishonen, I'll fix the hole in my bucket, but what do you make of this? Utgard Loki 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
No assertion of significance..? The Danish homepage is a little, I don't know, vague about the "school" aspect. You may wish to remove the school stub cat. Anyway, I've given its mother a Sicilian haircut. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Well, I possess the magic lawn mower, and I kilt the first one. I figure you know whether you want to kill the second one or not, so I will be merciful unto it for the time being. Howsomeever, I'd really be tempted to kiln that one, too, as it looks like some dude in a bathrobe to me. Geogre 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a deletionist. I am a random pagist. I hit "random," if I look at Wikipedia at all, and I see junk like this! Good grief! Is no one at all with admin tools doing New Pages Patrol? Do they all just watchlist each other and fight petty battles over who has power and who doesn't, while the whole encyclopedia turns into Everything2 without the quality control of the latter? I lak'd to throwed up. Utgard Loki 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada[edit]

Could You please take a look at User_talk:Alkalada. I tried over formally, but no one's paying attention (holidays I suppose).

BTW have a happy (late) Easter! :))) --PaxEquilibrium 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Pax. Have you tried asking User:Fred Bauder? See, I've already blocked Hahahihihoho indefinitely once, and when he appealed to the Arbitration Committee, Fred unblocked him for another chance at responsible editing. I've been watching some, and know he's been causing trouble. But if he has altogether squandered his second chance, it should really, logically, be up to Fred, or the ArbCom generally, to re-block indefinitely, this time for good.
OK... (checking) I see you have written to Fred. (Er, why do you say Alkalada is a meatpuppet (=a friend)? Surely he's Hahahihihoho's sockpuppet, i. e. the same person?) Fred's only been not-editing for about a day. Maybe it can wait till Fred returns and responds? Please get back to me if that takes more than another day or two, or if Alkalada edits so disruptively that he must be stopped right away. You can probably tell that I'd rather not have to try to get my head round what's happening on that talkpage... groan. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, I meant sock-puppet.
He most definitely used his second chance out.
BTW Fred Bauer did not respond (but he did return). --PaxEquilibrium 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He did not respond, but he did block. For yet another month. I think that block log is getting a little ridiculous, and I'm posting on Fred's page to say so. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Stuff them ballots![edit]

Now the footnote counters are resorting to polls to have their interpretations instituted. Have a look at this nonsense...

Peter Isotalo 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Que?[edit]

Why have you a picture of a sarcophagus depicting your archives? - I'm having enough trouble with poor Eleanora's skeleton withut you becoming sepulchre! Giano 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you never seen a chest of drawers before? Trust you to keep your socks in a sarcophagus. Speaking of Eleonora trouble, did you notice that Eleonora de Toledo (sic, with "de") has been a redirect to Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany since forever? Originally created by Wetman. (I fixed it today.) Bishonen | talk 18:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Did you know - that one of the Medici had a wife who talked to much? - so he hung her using one of the ties of the drapes - how cool is that? Giano 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contact me[edit]

I've been trying to get in touch with you off-wiki for a day now. Please contact me asap. DurovaCharge! 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

Hey Bishy!! Long time no talk. How’s it going? I tried to contact you off-site yesterday, but you didn’t reply. (I digress a bit on that, might seem a lil emotional) So anyway, I took a lil break and apparently this Ideogram guy is going to want to destroy me on wikipedia. I guess this is the end huh? To be honest with you (and everybody else who is reading this), deep down, I always knew this moment will arrive. Things will escalate out of control and the “LionHeartX/RevolverOcelotX/Guardian Tiger/Apolystic Destroyer (‘s) or whatever he’s called right now’s fan community” will show up and devour me. If that’s the way it is, I got no regret, only that I will make sure to tell everyone that ‘pedia is not a reliable source to gather information. Remember the 1st time we met? You called me a “vexatious litigant” and a “pest” (that description seems to fit Ideogram right now) and kicked me out of AN/I. After so many months of your tireless mentoring, I really put in a lot of effort to reform and tried my best not to disappoint you. Now, I’m saddened, even more disappointed when Centrx put a 1-second unjust punitive block in my block log, when the checkuser for Guardian Tiger got turned down, when David Levy blocked me for that UI spoofing episode, when LionHeartX got unblocked, and when Viridae blocked me for 3RR by accusing me of violating the “spirit” but no the actual rule while Ideogram walked away unharmed even though he “violated” 3RR himself (only to self-revert after seeing I have reported him). If you don’t want to get involved in newly-filed arbCom case (more like a personal attack forum against me), I can totally understand your reasons. (Ideogram and Sumple insulted you, maybe you should get Zilla involve ) But I will really appreciate if you can make a fair statement/assessment on the arbCom case. Lastly, I want to thank you for all the things you’ve done for me and the project as a whole. Thanks Bish!--Certified.Gangsta 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gangsta. I'll comment all right, but I thought it might be more useful to do it after the case has been accepted, as it looks like being. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Sure sounds good.--Certified.Gangsta 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

psst![edit]

Zen Wikimood 08.png

psst! hey! What does "per nom" mean? I don't want anyone to know that I don't know. Bladestorm 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It means you agree with the reasons the nominator gave. Bishonen
thank you! Bladestorm 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Decorum and good taste[edit]

Dear Mrs Bishonen,

As an administrator of impeccable taste and good standing I would be most grateful if you would delete this horrible page here [76] purporting to be a sculptor. It is very nasty, and I'm sure no one would wish to display such "art" in a nice drawing room - especially one such as mine in contrasting chintz with hand stamped Colefax and Fowler! I can't imagine poor Mrs Spears posed for that disgraceful work, and it certainly does not show her at her best - I can't think what her mid-wife was thinking of - and as for the last "statuette" I've seen more artistry produced on the Aubusson by my pedigree pekinise Tallulah while suffering from a nasty bout of dysentery. - Thank the good Lord for people like ourselves upholding decency. I'm just so relieved that my brother "Scrotie" [1] has not seen it he is a most impressionable youth, like that nice little BoG. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 11:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Most Noble Scrotum Paget-FitzTudor, 14th Earl of Bognor
My dear Lady Catherine, are you saying the great "I must, I must Increase my bust Scrotum" is your brother? Wonderful![77] Bishonen | talk 21:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Yuk! - How do we know that is really Brittany Spears? - it doesn't look like her to me. Giano 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, have you seen her from that angle? Bishonen | talk 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Not recently but I have to say I am with Lady C on this one. Giano 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you perchance Lady C's lover? Paul August 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Opinion[edit]

Bish,

Can I get your opinion on this article and the associated wiki-indecision Moho (Mormon Homosexual)? Bo-Lingua 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I finally did, sorry for the belatedness. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

This user[edit]

Hi, you placed an indef block template on Kilda (talk · contribs), but the block log shows zero blocks for the user, so I removed it. I'm sure it was in good faith, and don't think it's worth getting discoarged over. If you think I miscalculated on this, you can feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake again, it showed in that hidden log. Apologies, and I will be sure to undo that action. Falsely placing indef block templates is a serious offense, but I think even if you did make that mistake, you still did it in good faith, and you were correct all along.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is confusing, I don't understand it myself. Why do we have two logs? Bishonen | talk 05:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Your opinion if possible[edit]

Hello again, its been a while (the Yeti and and the trials of turning 50). This note is regarding [[Carnedd Llywelyn] (its "legendary" mountain in Wales) and its spelling. Yesterday I supplied a broader set of citations and references (probably overkill but they can be removed by consensus), what we have is a user, with opposed views (which is ok) who has deleted nearly all of them and has supplied some quite heated remarks. The citations/references were added to support the notion that the name of the mountain and its spelling/history is not soley confined to the Welsh speakers, writers and local publications. The citations consisted of original work done in 1200 appx (when Llywelyn was alive), the Royal Geographical Society a few other none Welsh books and white papers from Journals. I didn't write much more that one sentence in the article, but just about everything was deleted by the one user. Could you take a look at the last version by Gowron and see if I have been "ridiculous/stupid", if I have I the fair enough. P.S. I did complete more detailed work on the Yeti which seems to have been accepted, so thanks the comments there also. Best regards. (Gowron 09:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

History of women's suffrage in the United States[edit]

Hi, Bishonen. Would you take a look at a repeated anon entry on this article and do any appropriate admin thing? The sentence has been submitted from a number of IP#'s and I have reverted a number of times in recent past. The statement is clearly POV and inflammatory, and I suspect the editor thinks HE is being cute. Thanks.... and I hope things get better for you. What a wiki-mood! Best........WBardwin 05:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, W, thanks for the heads-up. I've semiprotected the suffrage article with a note on the talkpage. Oh, Godzilla's nothing, wait till you see a Bishzilla mood...! Bishonen | talk 10:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
The vandal hit the article. Soon afterward, Don Imus got fired! Geogre 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! WBardwin 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Women got the vote, and the dust bowl occurred soon after! Geogre 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric[edit]

Like your edits to List of women rhetoricians. Reading between the lines of the talk page that list seems to have started life as an article, which probably explains some of the editorializing. Things are exploding with Category:Women writers at the moment and so I'm delighted to see someone with a clear eye taking, er, a firm hand. — scribblingwoman 00:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be back. I just realized how curious it is that hardly any of the women on the list have any nationality. And it's pretty curious that they're all Westerners, too. I can almost think of the names of some Japanese ones... Bishonen | talk 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Spelling by ye propour forme[edit]

See talk:John Arbuthnot. A person flooding us with the complete genealogy of the Arbuthnot family has now decided that, not having contributed anything to the article, it is simply unconscionable that it remain in "American" English, and so we have yet another mid-Atlantic goulash to "regularise" those spellingss. I'm at 3RR, though, and I despise the pettiness of this kind of change so much that I'm tempted too strongly to go beyond. Geogre 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS isn't as simplistic on this issue as some people think. I've put in a few quotes from it on the talkpage. However... what's the point of semiprotection? Please unprotect, Geogre. Bishonen | talk 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I have. Essentially, I thought I was dealing with hydra accounts to achieve the aim (edit warring and gaming 3RR). Since I had been on the talk page and presented a case, it seemed to me that reverting within seconds by many hands was useless and needed to be stopped. As it turns out, the accounts doing the British spelling for Grand Little England were not new accounts, and I was mistaken. I maintain still, however, that this wretched desire to go through and simplistically say "This person was British (when the United States didn't exist at the time, so there was no option) and so I have to change the spelling to a form that the person himself or herself would never have used because, in the middle of the 19th century, some British folks found reforms practiced by Americans but thought of by British folks and American folks to be non-U" is tantamount to not only childishness but an attack and an edit war. The number of arguments against a change (aside from "status quo is always better than any unreasoned change") are endless, and those for are "a thirteen year old last year worked in a bit like this in the MoS and I can't read very well." Blug. Bad luck to all nationalists. Geogre 10:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Customer experience management[edit]

Good catch, though it leaves us with a bit of a mess. I've explained on the talk page. --Ronz 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mess? Mess? Not at all! /me rolls up sleeves, gets out her flamethrower. On second thoughts, I'll take a look at the other ones tomorrow. Feel free to speedy tag 'em, if you care to! Bishonen | talk 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
All speedied as copyvios. That was simpler than I thought, they were incredibly obvious. OK, the encyclopedia improved! :-) Bishonen | talk 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
and there was much rejoicing! --Ronz 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL, nice meeting you! SoleteRayosÑajo.gif Bishonen | talk 16:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Likewise! --Ronz 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinions?[edit]

This is the "controversial subjects noticeboard," isn't it? I've been bopping along, doing my random article thing, and I hit Karah Parshad. Now, the thing is clearly a how-to guide, and it's obviously not well done, but I can't figure out if it's a speedy delete as trivia, as an alternate name for a dish known better by another name, or a legitimate thing that needs the Manx cat treatment (stubbification). Since you seem to have all sorts of disagreeable people agreeably at your talk page (among whom I count myself), I thought I'd throw this out. How you manage to have all these people who disagree with everyone agreeing with you is one of those mysteries that may never be solved. Utgard Loki 13:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Flattery will win the day, Loki! I cultivate an adorable personality and have User:Bishzilla snarling at my heels ready to do my bidding, that's all. Karah Parshad is good info IMO, except that the reference to Ghee (clarified butter) as "oil" seems to be a mistake. Oh my, though... the first thing is to redirect the identical articles at Karah Prasad and Karah Prashad--sigh--and write a note to the creator of all of them... groan. OK, I've done that. Karah Parshad is the most common form on Google, so that gets to be it. How about you remove the how-to bits and make a nice little stub, hmm? Mind you, sampling Category:Sikh terms, which was how I spotted the duplicates, I notice much worse problems with some other articles there. Maybe you'd like to take a mailed fist to the non-standard formatting of such as Sewadar? Move the quotes to Wikiquote, for instance. Bishonen | talk 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I have done both, but I still regard these as highly suspect, especially "sewadar." That seems to be no more than a dictionary definition of a foreign language term. I don't see any way that it differs from "volunteer." At any rate, I handled the quote with my usual delicacy. Utgard Loki 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guilt by association[edit]

Hi there Bishonen. Wonder if you can help me with this one?

I've been engaged in a debate over content at the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" page. Specifically, I have objected to the inclusion of unsavoury characters like Idi Amin, white supremacists and holocaust deniers being listed as supporters of the apartheid analogy alongside reputable people like President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It looks to me like a clear use of association fallacy, or loosely speaking, guilt by association.

I initially objected on the grounds that people like Idi Amin and David Duke are not reliable sources and that therefore they should not be quoted, but my opponents argue they are not being quoted as reliable sources, but merely "catalogued" as people who have used the analogy. I've tried to find some means of clarifying the issue in Wiki policies and guidelines but without any luck.

Is there something I've missed, or are there no effective policies on who can be quoted in an article?

Also, I can't help noticing in my travels other instances of logical fallacies in articles, like poisoning the well for example. It occurs to me that perhaps there should be some sort of Wiki guideline discouraging the use of such tactics in editing? Because this sort of thing really drags the quality of some articles down in my opinion.

Thanks, Gatoclass 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asked, but the only defense is in the text itself. There are people who make the analogy simply as a figure of speech (the white supremacists) and those who make it as an analogy (Jimmy Carter). The former would also include any number of "shock jocks" and far right wing talk show hosts in the US. What they're doing is looking for any term of accepted evil and adding it to "Israel" to try to make their attack. It's not much different from "Islamofascist" in that regard: "fascist" plus "thing you don't like." It's not a comparison at all. Instead, it is just a figure of speech in an attack that reflects no more consideration or political philosophy than "Republican Party Darfur" would.
To try to defend against the Aspberger's-like impulse of Wikipedians, you have to work inside the article itself. There is no way to stop Wikipedians from lists that I've seen. They love lists. They love lists of lists. They love category tags with lists of category tags in a box and template. Whether the people here are just doing the Wikipedian obsessive compulsion or trying to winkle in some argument by analogy (or guilt by association), the best thing I can think of would be a heading. "Political theorists" making the analogy and "public figures using the term." The latter could include the clowns. The former would contain only a few people.
If you do that, the actual list mongers should leave it alone. If they don't leave it alone, if they want it all mixed into a stew, then you have pretty solid grounds for defending the article from them. FWIW. Geogre 11:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I like lists too ya know :p
In general I agree with your proposal. While I really don't think such characters should be listed at all (I mean, does the reader really need to know that the usual bunch of antisemites have jumped on the bandwagon?) my primary objection is that these crackpots are interleaved in the text with the more credible critics, which has the effect of making them all look like a bunch of kooks. So I've been trying to think of a way to categorize them separately myself.
I'm not sure that "political theorists" and "public figures" would work though, because someone will probably argue that's an artificial distinction. One would think there'd be some way to categorize them separately, but I just haven't quite managed to think of one yet :) Gatoclass 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Treatments of the theme" vs. "Uses of the phrase?" Utgard Loki 14:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A tad too nuanced to survive the rough and tumble of the Arab-Israeli pages, methinks :) Gatoclass 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Insult[edit]

Hi Bishonen. I assure you that the "community = Certified.Gangsta fanclub" comment was not intended to be an insult. It was my view of your actions in regard to Certified.Gangsta, which I disagree with. However, it was not intended to be an insult, and I do not see it as an insult. If you were insulted, I express my regret and retract my statement.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I never labelled Certified.Gangsta's comments about the LionHeartX fanclub an "insult". --Sumple (Talk) 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spreading incorrect spelling far and wide[edit]

I've just written William Rainborowe. I shouldn't have, though, because I did not spell it with contemporary British spelling. I don't know why I keep writing these things with mistakes in them! Then again, the man's entire career was in England, but he died in what would, 100 years later, be the United States, so maybe he can be spoken of with the spelling natural to me. (Coming up will be David Hartley Jr. and Francis Hawkins, a prodigy.) Geogre 20:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The first link is to Hartley Sr. The second is going to be entirely overwritten. We'll see how much protest there is for an A1 speedy delete getting overwritten by a stub on a Jesuit prodigy. Geogre 20:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Adventures of a new article: I'm glad that there are people paying attention. However, the article immediately gathered up a "fix" of removing the apostrophes marking plural dates (this is not a correction, folks; I use the same style sheet as the NY Times and several grammars; taking out the apostrophe is not only an Americanism, but it is a vulgar Americanism (i.e. many American systems still require them, and I'm one)) and a tag saying that few articles link to it. Given the fact that the article is brand new, I'm not surprised at that. However, I also don't think many articles will ever link to William Rainborowe. He is interesting as an example of a great many things, but there isn't a constellation of related individuals to discuss and link back and forth from. I suppose I could invent some link forms. The point is, is the article less worthy for that? Usually, the "few links" means someone is making something up (like "J-ball funk" or some other protologism), so it's a useful bullshit detector, but in the case of important but obscure (it's possible) people, it won't be indicative. This is the difference between a blind and sighted application of a tag. Geogre 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking we should open an RFC on the Manual of Style itself and what it means. Does it mean "go kill all variation," or does it mean, "If you don't know how to do something, here is the preference?" Geogre 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy[edit]

I'm sorry I missed your follow-up suggestion of unprotecting the IP's talkpage last night, but I signed off for the evening right after my ANI post. Checking in this morning it appears that the issue is resolved for the moment, and hopefully positive future editing from DreamGuy will eliminate any need to revisit the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? The IP talkpage is semiprotected. The user has not received any unblock message from the unblocking admin Therasa Knott. He may well still think he's blocked. There's a great big template on the userpage that states he is, and a block message on the talkpage. He may not be the most polite user, but he sure isn't treated with a lot of courtesy either. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
I'll drop Theresa a note, and follow up if she doesn't. (I'm actually on a semi-wikibreak while travelling at the moment, but not very good at keeping my promises to myself.) Newyorkbrad 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Indeed[edit]

That could be so. But no, I didn't mean to sound disrespectful. I rather meant to show that my opinion deviates completely from yours. This editor has been a problem to me and several people for weeks now and you insit that he is a swell guy and productive, even though to make a case against him would involve simply picking random edit summaries he makes. --Sn0wflake 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If by problem to him he means pointing out that his policy (which he even brags about on his talk page) of blocking first and asking questions later violates Wikipedia policies and that his restoring of information on how to pirate software on an article talk page after I removed it for being not at all what article talk pages are for was both out of process and, arguably, full on illegal is a problem, I guess then I'm guilty. If Sn0wflake had even made an attempt to be civil, assume good faith, explain the situation without being overly aggressive and so forth, and then didn't follow it up with presenting false information on ANI leading to a block way out of line with any actions I made, THEN he might have cause to complain. DreamGuy 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist[edit]

Thanks for sticking your neck out to get the improper block removed a second time. DreamGuy 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ouija, should we lock out these articles?" N...o....y...o..... Geogre 01:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"If anyone is reading this, tap the table." Utgard Loki 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
<tap> -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There! Now we have something for the /Paranormal/Evidence page -- evidence of the paranormal right here on Bishonen's talk page! Utgard Loki 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a ghost seriously - I have, one should not make light of these things there are more things in heaven and earth than we can understand - I have also been abducted by a spacecraft, but that was on the way home from a friend's stagnight, so may not count Giano 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been encountered by a ghost, too. I scared the poor thing senseless, I'm afraid. (Actually, I have had multiple experiences with ghosts, but I don't worry about them much. "Ooow, you rattled the door! Ooow, I'm so scared.") Geogre 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Help![edit]

I've moved Villa Medicea di Cafaggiolo into main space when I meant to move it with user space can you sort it out - it is far from finished and fullof unreferenced fact and spelling mistakes. Giano 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I seem to have acheived it all on my own, now can someone just delete the redirect page Villa Medicea di Cafaggiolo because that is Italian etc, and I'm not sure that is what I am going to call it, in fact I may add some other villas to the page and give it a group name - there again I may never finish it - who knows. Giano 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleted the whole lot of them! Just kidding, this is your baby. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks sweatheart! I just forgot to put the use thing in, when I was title changing! Giano 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for... the colon was missing, Raul has moved it again. OK, this is your baby now. Bishonen | talk 01:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

216.165.158.7[edit]

Removing the {{Blockedsockpuppet|DreamGuy}} is a moot point now; the IP address is indefinitely blocked. --Iamunknown 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's indefinitely blocked. That doesn't mean it's an abusive sock puppet. And even if it were one, that doesn't mean the template's supposed to be used as a brand of shame. And even if it were supposed to be used for that purpose, that would even so be the wrong tag for an IP. See WP:SOCK for when and how to tag. Bishonen | talk 19:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the link Bishonen, I already know how to tag, see my contribs. I'll go tag it with {{Indefblockedip}}. --Iamunknown 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I know why Elonka is trying all she knows to get at DreamGuy. Is there any special reason you are? If it's a "moot point", why insist on doing it? Bishonen | talk 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I tagged the IP with {{Indefblockedip}} because it is an indefinitely blocked IP and should be categorized as such, should it not? --Iamunknown 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no necessity, no compulsion, and no profit in it in this case. I explained above why not, but you're obviously not interested. You'll make a fine admin. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I do tend to tag things and clean out backlogs robotically. --Iamunknown 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You'll make a robotic admin. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
Which is not a good thing, and something I would rather not be. The anon is requesting unblock right now and, frankly, I'm quite surprised it was indef blocked in the first place. I haven't followed the convo, but it doesn't appear that DreamGuy was using sockpupets to get around blocks or the 3RR rule or anything, it just appears he or she was using that IP address for whatever reason. Granted, the IP is being kind of disruptive but I might be if everyone were blocking me and tagging me and stuff. --Iamunknown 19:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You say that and still you tag. Cute. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm confused now. I infer from your last comment that you are annoyed with me, and from previous comments that you disdain my actions. Why? What have I done? --Iamunknown 22:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confused? What about me? You tag the page. You chirpily ignore my pleas and my reasons for not tagging it. You agree that your action is likely to further goad an already beleaguered editor. ("I might be if everyone were blocking me and tagging me and stuff.") You say you don't want to be the kind of person--or admin--whatever--who does that. But you still don't remove the stupid tag. Why do I disdain such a spaghetti of contradictions? Gee... I really don't know how to explain it. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
  • (outdent) I see where you would be confused. I wish we could have gotten off to a better start. Our first interaction that I am aware of was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive223#User:BassPlyr23 removing ifd tag from Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg, on IRC after that and then here. I was unfortunately beside myself in that first discussion, feeling frustrated with what I perceived as an attack on those who tag images for deletion which, incidentally, includes me. Regardless what I perceived, however, my conduct there was inappropriate, as you noted on irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia.
  • Now we meet again in less than favourable circumstances. I sometimes do, admittedly, edit robotically. I find that I like repetitive tasks. Why? Maybe because a lot can be accomplished in a little amount of time. I happened to come across incorrectly tagged user pages earlier last week and then picked up on consolidating or otherwise applying templates to them (for the bulk of my contributions, see this). When I was browsing through the administrator's noticeboard I noticed the discussion you started titled "Spontaneous block of DreamGuy by David Gerard, please review" and I poked around a bit. I applied {{tempblockeduser}},[78] as it was appropriate at the time and, as normally, I left the page on my watchlist. Next I saw it it had changed quite a bit, with your revision being the most recent one and the IP indefinitely blocked.
  • My first comment in this discussion on your talk page, I realize in retrospect, was inappropriate given what I should have said. When I wrote, "Removing the {{Blockedsockpuppet|DreamGuy}} is a moot point now; the IP address is indefinitely blocked", I should have said something like, "I see that you removed {{Blockedsockpuppet|DreamGuy}}. Are you aware that the IP address is indefinitely blocked? Should it be tagged with {{Indefblockedip}}?", or something to that effect.
  • I originally was taken off-guard by your comments because I had difficult inferring what you meant. I see now that by stating, "You'll make a fine admin." and "You'll make a robotic admin.", you were not suggesting that you approved of what you think I will become, but that you think what I will become is something undesirable. I agree to an extent. Being robotic is, arguably, necessary when clearing out large backlogs; it is not, however, appropriate when dealing with real-life editors who, as human beings, can and may be hurt by what you or I say or anyone else may say in correspondence.
  • I apologise if my correspondence with you has been muddled and confusing. Unfortunately my correspondences sometimes are; I may occasionally have erratic behavior including, but not limited to, getting riled up, being obstinate and posing questions more than replying to them; I would like to think, however, that I also am willing to listen to others' opinions, discern between what types of tasks should occupy my time, correspond civilly and collaborate with other editors and seek forgiveness when I realise that I am wrong. I realise that my side of our correspondence has, since the beginning, been inappropriate. I definitely need to work on that and, in general, work on appropriately communicating clearly and civilly with other editors. I apologise for my inappropriate correspondence on ANI and here, and I hope that you will forgive me. Yours, Iamunknown 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, cool. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Sigh, I wish that you would believe me. --Iamunknown 00:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! But that doesn't refer to you. I do believe you. My bookmarks aren't secret messages. I was thinking of using that article to write an essay in Wikipedia space, that's all. Wikipedia is full of bad-faith apologies. How many times have you been told essentially "I apologize but it was all your fault"? Yeah, me too. Bishonen | talk 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Something appears to me to be wrong with this block and page protection. See my comments on the IP's talkpage. I am hesitant to unprotect the page, if not unblock, only because the situation seems so odd that I am concerned I am missing something. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Only thing you are missing is that a small but very active group of admins (and ex-admins, in Tony's case) completely threw out any pretense to follow WP:AGF, normal dispute resolution steps and other Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, you guys missed the second RFA for badlydrawnjeff. The Oppose votes were shocking. They honestly opposed on the basis that he would follow the rules. I'm not joking. They thought his view that IAR is wrong must be denied, and a couple even said that hopefully there wouldn't be any admins insisting on rules anymore. Again, this is not hyperbole. Geogre 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is the best thing ever"[edit]

Wikipedia is the best thing ever.
Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject.
So you know you are getting the best possible information. — Michael Scott

El_C 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Off off on. El_C 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I've never heard the Catholic Church called a "modern sect" in an encyclopedia before. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I have now edited that paragraph to remove that infelicitous turn of phrase. -- WikiPedant 18:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Pedant. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject! El_C 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I saved a life.
My own.
Am I a hero?
I really can't say, but yes.
Michael Scott

El_C 06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You're forgetting — no other encyclopedias are big enough to have an article on the Catholic Church, and even if they do it won't be up to date about the abolition of limbo — and the US version of the Office is officially rubbish. So there. The Land 17:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Messages[edit]

Replied - is your email working properly yet? Giano 12:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Got your reply. My e-mail's working fine, no problem. It's only the e-mail connected chat that's FUBAR. You can e-mail me any time and I'll get it. The chat for some reson insists I'm offline, waves a broken icon in my face, etc. (Watch my lips: learn to IRC!) Those diffs made my day, too, weren't they great? :-D Is that image you before or after the crash diet? Bishonen | talk 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Looks like this chap to the right could do with some Australian swimwear. Or perhaps he is already wearing some? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you know about aussiebum ALoan? - that all looks a bit dodgy to me, that sort of swimwear. Giano 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
How do I know? Just one of those things that any modern man of letters must be aware of - I understand that the brand is quite popular in certain circles. Perhaps Bunchofgrapes would like some for the times when he parades his svelte new physique in the gym. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
All this posing about, is unhealthy in every sense of the word - this [79] is what the modern man of letters such as myself is wearing this year, and very flattering they are too; and you ALoan would be strongly advised to follow suit sur la plage - women like to use their immagination. Giano 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that chap has shorts that are about half a size too large - on him, at least. I fear that all too little is left to the imagination when I am on the beach. Still, cold water will do that to a man. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
ALoan I am dunbfounded - you are not a nudist are you? Giano 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Am I gonna have to have rules of conversation here? Bishonen | talk 19:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
We have all been quite decent, you know. The horses don't look at all alarmed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am goint to change the mood completely, I am in Euphoric mood, yet another page I contributed to [80] on an, unjustly, little known architect has now been translated into yet another foreign language, and at the end of the day that it what we are all here for not the FAs, GAs and the FKWs - making knowledge once only mentioned in very expensive books freely available - and that like a lot of pages I have been involved with was a collaberation with wikipedian photographers millions of miles away, in this case Grutness who especially took the photos for the page so let's celebrate what is good about Wikipedia. Giano 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done. Even better is when a foreign language version is "featured". Reflected glory. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm about, too. I love seeing "my" articles get translations, and if I see that they're featured in foreign languages, I'm even more proud. I've been lucky enough to have that occur more than once. Geogre 11:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace[edit]

Seen this [81] there will be bothig left by the time they have finished! Giano 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That one is not nearly as bad as the previous ones. I wonder who got blocked. Geogre 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (No, I don't ... not really.)
What are you talking about? - who is blocked? Anyway I'm done with Buckingham Palace and all of them - they can do what they like to it. I wash my hands of the FAs, I cannot be bothered to have yet another round of abuse with LuciferMorgan or anymore of his ilk, there is Ideogram wittering away about me elsewhere - Oh is it him that's blocked? - I thought that was yesterday or before - anyway I leave them all to their own devices. Giano 21:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it was someone else. I meant that we weren't seeing the usual screaming and extremism -- at least yet -- and ruefully predicting that it would come back as soon as the blocked people came back. How dare we authors protest when these experts at "what makes an FA" tell us that we have not pleased them? Do we not know that footnotes are mandatory and that an article on Pop Tarts with superscripted numbers running to 100 is a proper FA, even though every one refers to a website run by the company, while an article based on deep reading and years of study that uses parenthetical references for a discussion of Linear B is obviously not featured material? It isn't the words that matter, after all, or the quality of them, or the discussion, or the depth, or the value of the words that "makes a Featured Article": it is the form. Soon, we may be able to do without authors altogether and just have "auto-content" templates for Featured Articles. Geogre 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well when one reads this " ....the assertion that Buckingham Palace was deliberately targeted by the Germans in WWII was sufficiently challengable to require an inline cite " when the fact that two bombs at different times fell slap bang in the middle of it resulting in the famous "I'm glad we've been bombed, I can now look the East End in the face" comment. in my opinion is evidence enough that it was targeted - anyway I'm not playing those games there. I shall just read occasionally with quiet amusement. Anyhow it is in one of the books, they can broaden their education by reading them. Giano 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've already got another wikistalker[edit]

User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea disagreed with me on edits to Dragon removing some links as unencyclopedic (and was chagrined to find others agreed with me on that) and has now taken it upon himself to look at my edit history, go to a series of somewhat random articles I had edited (I hit the go to random article to get there, many of them are not my normal areas of editing and certainly not Mermaid's) to revert everything I did and then put an edit comment saying he disagreed with some small part of it. I have undone some of them (and tried to incorporate any real productive edits he added later, which seem to consist solely of updating the reference section coding) and left a message on his talk page, but I would appreciate if you could doublecheck his edits. DreamGuy 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look without prejudice, but could you name these articles, please? User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea edits so diligently that I have difficulty orienting myself in their contribs. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Some of the articles in question are Bigfoot, Téa Leoni, and Erotica, with some lesser but still problematic edits to Slash fiction and Adult theater. It's pretty clear he had to have been following my edit history as it's not at all likely he has all of those on his watch list, and I only got to some of them by hitting the random button and then occasionally following links on those pages for more to clean up. It appears he hasn't reverted them again after I noticed what he was doing, warned him, and reinserted my edits. DreamGuy 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
And he's back to leaving nasty comments on my talk page, continuing to blind revert all of my edits (and any edits made by editors who came after me) on Werewolf, Dilbert, Bigfoot, and probably others too. DreamGuy 03:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This page deleted[edit]

Note that I didn't deliberately delete this page, it was several database glitches that tripped me up while I was trying to remove a few revisions. Or, well, I did delete it, but that was only supposed to last for a few seconds. Darn thing, I'm tired of messing with it. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

This is why I prefer e-mail, myself, for talking to individuals and graffiti for addressing the world at large. It's not easy to find a wall big enough, so I've developed a very fine Edwardian script for my messages. Utgard Loki 15:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In vino veritas might be a blue link. If it is, then people have far too much time to putter around. The point is to be it, not write about it, just as the point is to write about it, not dress it in fancy footnotes and boxes. I'm nine beers or nine bullets down and regretting those awful intervals of lucidity. The best answer is Faust's at the beginning of that famous book Goethe: "My mooks can beach me nothing!" Faust had a lot of trouble with his lower class friends, you see. Geogre 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Great Fire Of London[edit]

No, Indigo Jones the famous London architech. I was certain he submitted radical street plans after the fire but as died in the 1650s this is obviously impossible. Christopher Wren did propose a brand new street plans very soon after the fire however, which I thought was an interesting addition to the article considering his later importance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marhz (talk

contribs) 19:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah. I was just kidding. Bishonen | talk 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
I like Aquamarine Jones' work better. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Gotta be Starman Jones' for me :p --Alf melmac 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Alf couldn't think of any more witty colour names to pun on

Pontiac's Rebellion[edit]

Bishonen: For some time I have believed that User:Kevin Myers' fine article should go to featured status. We had a peer review last year and got good responses. He is quite modest and seems reluctant to nominate the article himself. As I have never nominated an article, I looked over Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and will start making notes. Given my time constraints in the next few weeks, would you look over Pontiac's Rebellion and see if there is anything glaring that should be addressed before I nominate? I would appreciate your opinion. Thanks. WBardwin 10:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking, W. Bishonen | talk 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks so much, Bishonen. As I expected, your observtions will be very helpful. I copied them to the talk page for Kevin's review. I'll be away, once again, until May 9th or 10th. Will be working toward FA at that point. Best.......WBardwin 08:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Prod2[edit]

Sure do, plenty of business-cruft articles on my watchlist I keep eyeballing. Cheers --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one, if you're interested: Requirements management --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG, that's ug-lee. What mountains of this rubbish we have! :-( That's a copyvio. I found the first paragraph here, though not most of the rest. My guess is that the wiki article and the metronometech site were ripping off the same book. Curiously, another page I was looking at, Systems thinking, was in the same condition: I found one paragraph on the web, at an essay mill site but not the rest; and yet the whole thing is written in exactly the same way. I'm cynical, I don't for a moment believe that whoever-it-was merely lifted one paragraph somewhere and wrote the rest himself.
So, I tried to prod 'em, but ran into trouble. I haven't used the PROD template before, like I said. It worked fine yesterday, but now I can't get it to display my reason! I must be doing something wrong.... except that I'm doing exactly the same thing as yesterday. Aren't I? It's {{subst:prod|reason}}, right? What's the scope for getting that wrong? Do you see anything wrong with it? Can you help? Bishonen | talk 17:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Yup that's the proper syntax. If I remember correctly, however, prod has trouble with embedded external links -- trying to add 'em can often cause them to look screwy. My usual solution is to simply not add the brackets to the EL, but you can also use this syntax too (which has the same net result but might be a bit more reliable:
{{subst:prod|concern=REASON}}
If neither of those work, however (or if you're not trying to use an EL), just drop the exact string you're trying to use here and i'll take a look. Hope this helps! --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I did want an exteernal link, yes, but I tried without it as well, and it didn't make any difference. Your syntax works, though, bracketed external link and all! Thanks! Bishonen | talk 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Just took a peek at that prod, it may have been the equals sign that was setting it off... --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Bishonen | talk 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Shakespeare monkeys[edit]

Well I guess it makes more sense than half the stuff you read on the talk page. Paul B 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about User:Wassermann[edit]

Hi: Please see my concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#User:Wasserman. Thank you, IZAK 13:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Missed you[edit]

Yellow sunrise.JPG

Min värld liknar din, och den liknar den ändå inte.
Skrattande dansar min stjärna bland stjärnegåtor.
Din järngråa glädje, den älskar jag långt ur fjärran.
Låt mig få gå vid din sida
och nå med blicken
in i din vintriga värld och din ljungeldsvilja!
Karin Boye

I've missed you, friend! Love,
Phaedriel
17:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Heh! Ja, visst gör det ont när knoppar brister, varför skulle annars våren tveka? Welcome back, Phaedriel! Bishonen | talk 17:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

POV pushing/edit war[edit]

I could use some outside input on Dissociative identity disorder -- there is an editor there currently dead set on trying to hide the fact that the diagnosis is controversial, depsite there being a full article on why it is controversial (and in fact trying to use the existence of that article to rationalize why the main article shouldn;t even mention the controversy). He has also been extremely aggressive in edit comments on my talk page and there and is simply reverting without trying to make any efforts to understand policies or acknowledge problems with his version. My version may need some rewording, but it's clearly more accurate than his. DreamGuy 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG, there's a content fork about the controversy? We hatezzzzz them. I think the first question has to be whether that article should be merged (back?) into the DID page. I've posted about it on Talk:Multiple personality controversy, to begin with. IMO we're unlikely to see any consensus about the DID page as long as there's a separate controversy page. Its existence invites exactly the kind of arguments you describe there. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Not a tulip[edit]

A flower from my garden, the water lily Comanche, which floats with grace and beauty above the turbulence, much like you. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, it is beautiful! Grace above the turbulence...lol...I'm afraid I'm more like the ostensibly collected duck or swan or whatever it is--you know, paddling furiously underneath? How are you, Pups? You have a lovely garden! Bishonen | talk 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Having a reasonably good day, thanks much. :-) Take the compliment! if the unruffled calm is accompanied by furious paddling, it is, after all, beneath the surface. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding: thank you for the compliment on my garden, however honesty compels me to point out that you see only the parts I post, which are, of course, the pretty parts - not the parts which are suffering from drought, disease, or neglect. It brings me joy, though, and if some small bits of can be shared to bring others joy, I am twice happy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A reminder[edit]

Chipmunks are timid.
Typical striped plump little grass mouse.
Stripey babies.
Chinchillas, also timid
Giano, not at all timid, very hungry and just spotted something tasty above
File:Mikka.jpg
Mikkas, not very timid; delete my witty remarks!

That is all! El_C 22:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Oh...don't tell me you read this? That wasn't for your eyes, Mr. Petting Zoo! A mere tasteless joke! I'm sorry! I don't really eat them! Bishonen | talk 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Not to worry, Elsie - I had this happen to me, and I'm still yapping. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not privy to that discussion. Outside my house, I saw a chipmunk, sitting. El_C 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Stripey fellers are so cute! And timid also. The chipmunk, the wild boar piglet, the Typical Striped Grass Mouse, the lot. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. Chinchillas, too. El_C 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And the striped suit! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
And the 1930s gangster! Bishonen | talk 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
El C, thank you for extra bookmark. Bishzilla feelings expressed here, please endorse. bishzilla ROARR!! 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I hope you don't mind that I altered your caption for the striped mouse. I thought "plump" was a much nicer word than "fat". By the way, I have another photo of little stripey mice, to copy from Hungarian Wikipedia and to upload to Commons, but, having read this, I think I'll give them to 'Zilla instead! ElinorD (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed the monster seems to be developing a "kind heart", of all things. No fear of that happening with ogress Bishonen! Bishonen | talk 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC).


Giano, python sketches are down here. Bishonen | talk 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


hey Bish[edit]

Hey! Did you see User:LionheartX newest edits? It seems like since I'm going to be on revert parole very shortly, he has started POV pushing all over again. Do you think we should take him to arbCom?? Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lord, CG, I can't stand it. I'm sorry, you're on your own with Lionheart's edits, I'm not going to read them. Prolixity is his sharpest weapon. It hath magical powers: it putteth the reader to sleep. Also, well, I don't quite know how to put this, but if the arbcom sanctions you, which is looking likely, they'll be kind of predisposed to a rather negative view of view in any case you might bring in the immediate future. It's not a good time for it, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
If I can jump in, the best plan would be to ask an administrator who has subject-matter knowledge of the pages that are being edit-warred over to look in on those pages and make sure things are in decent order. (Please don't look at me, as I don't have the relevant subject-matter expertise.) Newyorkbrad 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page[edit]

You posted this on my Talk Page:

I notice that Real96 has asked you many times to not post on his talkpage again. Your continued and increasingly aggressive posts in the face of that are beginning to look like harassment. He was trying to help. Don't post on his page again, please. This includes non-apology apologies and other amusement. No posts at all. I mean it. Bishonen | talk 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


I am curious: (1) how do you define "many times"? I counted exactly once. But, I could be mistaken. Please direct me. And (2) how would it come to pass that you owuld "happen" to notice all of this? That strikes me as odd. And raises my suspicions. Thanks for your input! I await to hear from you! Thanks! (JosephASpadaro)

Oh, good. I'd love to hear all about your suspicions, do please detail them. If you think you'll be able to move smoothly from trolling a young user who did nothing but try to help, to trolling a Wikipedia administrator, you'll find you're mistaken. Bishonen | talk 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Hi! Thanks for your reply! But ... I see that you neglected to answer BOTH of my questions. Shall I repeat them? Please let me know. Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 03:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
Four times. Real96 deleted your posts with an edit summary requesting that you take your concern to your own page for discussion here, here, and here. He requested the same on your page here. I saw you post repeatedly on his talkpage because his talkpage is on my watchlist. The watchlist shows edit summaries, and the increasingly distressed tone of his, as here, alerted me that something unusual was going on. Notice the blue words in this text? They're links. In order to understand what people say to you, you're supposed to click on the links in their text. This is a superior method to pestering them for information already contained in the links. Now don't post on this page - my page - again unless you'd like to be blocked for trolling. And in the future, if you suspect me of keeping an eye on your contributions, it'll be because I am. Please interact constructively with other editors. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Bish, thanks for your help. This maybe a troll or a new user who is confused. I am trying to act in good faith, but for my sake and your sake, we shouldn't go Bishzilla on this user. By the way, when are you going to archive? Have a good day! Real96 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am on wikibreak for a week too.. Real96 22:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Systems thinking copyright violation fixed[edit]

See talk, Copyright violation fixWikiLen 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture caption[edit]

LOL! I just saw this edit you made. Would you believe I had originally considered labelling the picture Giano, Kelly and you, but then decided to leave the other woman blank. Glad to see someone took up the challenge! :-) Carcharoth 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Frivolity Alert[edit]

File:Jester-point.jpg
Justanother makes a very important WP:POINT.

This one caught my eye. Apparently it is now "against the rules" to be less than deadly serious on the talk pages. [82]. Can't have that! [83] We all better tighten up! --Justanother 00:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof Mistake[edit]

In response to your message that you just posted on my talk page, I would like to say that that was not intended at all and I had accidently clicked on "Rollback - Vandal 3" - I believe there was some sort of a lag that had caused me to click on the button accidently. I knew that Ugajin was not a vandal at all and I immediately realised that I had made a mistake and removed the vandalism warning message from his userpage. For the note you suggested me to write, at first, I had thought about writing one, but I then had realised that he hasn't created a userpage nor does he reply to any of his messages so I thought it wasn't necessary. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bhavesh.Chauhan, I hope I didn't come across as too reproachful. I thought you might need alerting to the error (though now I see I was wrong), and that Ugajin would be unlikely to write to do it. FWIW, while he doesn't reply to messages, he does read them. I noticed that with this message of mine, where he immediately stopped adding the mistaken categories and started cleaning up the ones he'd done. Good luck with the VandalProof, I'm sure you're doing good work with it. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Whoa![edit]

That's a big raccoon!! El_C 06:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Procyon lotor 2.jpg
My dad has one about that size named Herman, who visits every morning to do duty as garbage disposal (Dad tosses his kitchen scraps out for him.) KillerChihuahua?!? 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I just loved being able to use "Restoring dream" in an edit summary. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Apropos, why did you delete my reply on Geogre's talk page? Was I editing the "closed" discussion? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution -v- admin noticeboard[edit]

My off-topic comment got me thinking: while I totally agree that dispute resolution is not user-friendly, how user-friendly is the administrators' noticeboard? I've been monitoring it lately and it seems that most "open informal complaint[s] about misuse of administrative powers" end with citations of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department". I previously considered AN/ANI to be user-friendly, but it certainly doesn't seem so. (I could try to find specific discussions if you would like.) Anyways, that was my thought process, no need for a resounding "No." in your edit summary.  :P --Iamunknown 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia complaints department, unless your complaints and/or departments relate to racoons and/or more timid critters. El_C 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You want to complain? Look at these shoes. I've only had 'em two weeks and the sole's worn right through. And what's the point of complaining, anyway? It's not like you ever get anywhere. Utgard Loki 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (channeling Eric Idle)
Two weeks? You were lucky! We used to live in a lake! Bishonen | talk 10:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
You were lucky to have a lake! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road.--t'Alf melmac 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the kid that use to kick random stuff off the road... - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Getting kicked in the head lessons is next door. Geogre 11:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Alf tells Geogre to hold his head "like this", then go "Waaah".
I would, but I've heard that Inspector Thompson's Gazelle of Scotland Yard, special "Getting out of comedy bits without a proper punchline" division is on the case. (Yes, I mean Thompson's Gazelle of the Yard!) Geogre 11:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Evening all, I'm arrestin' youse lot for acts of self-conscious behaviour contrary to the 'Not in front of the children' Act, two, always saying 'It's so and so of the Yard' every time the fuzz arrives and, three, and this is the cruncher, offenses against the 'Getting out of sketches without using a proper punchline' Act, four, namely, simply ending every bleedin' sketch by just having a policeman come in and... wait a minute...--Inspector Thompson's Gazelle
I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition. Ben Aveling 12:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was sitting through Spamalot on Broadway while you all were typing this thread. I could have come here instead and saved $110! Newyorkbrad 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: CG-Ideo[edit]

I was reverting to the version at the moment the case was closed (in fact, Newyorkbrad asked other clerks as well as helpers to keep an eye on the page edits). Thought that you'd like to know. :) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Snap! Bishonen | talk 02:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
Because there's a (+1) after yours. I think you might have left a space somewhere. (if we both reverted to the same exact edition your edit wouldn't show up.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The (+1) probably means mine is better. :-P (And I left a space, too.) Bishonen | talk 02:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
Hmm... *gives you a 1up mushroom - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Puppet Tags for Superburgh, Truth in Comedy & 24.3.194.217[edit]

The discussion on ANI was regarding the main 'puppet master' of the account, not the puppets. It was deemed that tagging ChrisGriswold's main account as a 'puppet master' was excessive and should not be done. But the other accounts are suspended and were used primarilly as tools by ChrisGriswold to deceive and abuse other Wikipedians. Those tags on those accounts should stay in place and not be removed. —SpyMagician 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

His name is on the puppet tags too. Sorry, but I won't play along with any quest for vengeance. Wikipedia is not a pillory. Bishonen | talk 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
See my talk for my thoughts on this matter. I'm not prepared to edit-war over it, but I agree with Bishonen. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This was not and is not a quest for vengance. It's quite unbelilevable that someone who was an admin and who would have done what he did is being protected in this way. If yu are going to characterize my desire to keep the tags on the sock puppet accounts as a 'quest for vengance' how would you descrbe ChrisGriswold's initial desire to create these 'sock puppets'—while an admin—to abuse others? You're defending someone who ruined the lives of others. Asking those tags stay in place is nt vengance. It's simply right. —SpyMagician 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
He ruined lives? By deceptively using alternative accounts on a website? How did he do that? Bishonen | talk 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
This has got to be trolling, surely? -- ChrisO 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I think it's sincere, but it's getting self-defeating. [/me wanders off muttering "ruined the lives...ruined the lives...hmpff... wtf... ruined them..?"] Bishonen | talk 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

RevolverOcelot/Guardian Tiger/Apocalyptic Destoyer[edit]

...and now LionheartX. He was unblocked after this (which I didn't know about, was away from Wikipedia then). Have a look at the current discussion at WP:ANI#User:Certified.Gangsta_violating_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FCertified.Gangsta-Ideogram, if he's not already banned again before you get there. Dmcdevit·t 10:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just reading it, thanks. You didn't know about that? What a pity. Yeah, the nicest thing I can say about LionheartX's editing is that he probably doesn't realize the disruption his flooding and spamming and repetitiousness cause simply as such. When he got going at the CG-Ideogram arbitration case, I ended up taking it off my watchlist — it was too irritating to constantly find yet another post from him with nothing new in it at the top of the list. What it must be like to be in his sights, as CG is, I don't even like to imagine. As for banned, Ryulong has deleted Lionheart's userpage, presumably on user request. Do you know if that means he's supposed to have left? I'm sure you'll agree that a move like that, even if sincerely meant at the moment, really shouldn't be taken as case closed and no banning necessary. Bishonen | talk 10:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


Thanks for the heads up, I've commented. I know this seems pointless and abstract to us, but these people represent two nations with a non-zero chance of going to war in our lifetimes so they both forget civility sometimes. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Lion's editing in mainspace, in suggesting there's simply too much of it. On talkpages and in Wikipedia space I believe he's way beyond "forgets civility sometimes." Bishonen | talk 11:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. But likewise for Certified. All the best, Ben Aveling 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BenAveling, you are hardly a neutral voice here. Ever since Guardian Tiger was banned, you deliberately attempted to classify me and Guardian Tiger (and his socks) in the same category when I am getting harassed and brutalized by him since last summer. Maybe you should spend your free time on improving the actual encyclopedia rather than teaching ban-evading sockpuppet how to wikilawyer his way out of a community ban. You are being counterproductive and disruptive to the project, not to mention this blatant lie. [84] User:Dmcdevit is the admin who proposed the community ban with no opposition. Banning LionheartX is strictly a case of policy enforcement especially with these new instances of disruption. If we want to take a stand and make wikipedia a better place, ban him now.--Certified.Gangsta 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:010405f.png[edit]

Hello, Bishonen. An automated proccess has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:010405f.png) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I got that bot, too! See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Idiocy_by_ElC (permanent link). El_C 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bed sheeeeeeet[edit]

What's a fancy word for Bed sheet pattern? El_C 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bed sheets should never be paterned or coloured! Giano 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
They should be camouflaged. It'll add some spice to the marriage that way and some mystery to the single person. Utgard Loki 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's for a translation I'm working on... :( El_C 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
EL C, bed sheets do not have patterns, they are just ...well...bedsheets! Giano 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Some bedsheets have patterns, or even draw-rings. I have one with bunnies and bambies, for eg. Exclaim that. El_C 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Ben Aveling 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Ben, ahem! Giano 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC and WP:CANVASS[edit]

Hi Bishonen. Please see User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. Thanks so much for raising the issue. I'll be pleased either way when it's clarified. --Dweller 10:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Replacing “and” with “&”[edit]

My apologies, I just have a natural adversion towards the word "and". It won't happen again 60.229.123.206 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. Do you also have an aversion to editing logged in? Anyway, since you sneakily reintroduced a whole anthill of ampersands along with the gradual addition of that apology, it won't, in fact. You have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
My !vote for a collective noun for ampersands is "armada", that or "shock wave".--Alf melmac 12:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Spray? Hail? Monsoon? Dribble? Ooze? Bishonen | talk 12:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Amperdune. Geogre 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
An etal of amperands. (No, not the Northumbrian village.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Electrodune.--Alf melmac 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

screwed up a deletion tag[edit]

Hey, sorry, not sure what the rotocol is to get someone to help fix a deletin vote that gets tags messed up somewhere (I don't know why they make it so complicated), but I am trying to put up N.F. Houck and Herald (novel) for the same deletion vote, as the guy is just some nobody who paid his $50 or whatever to LuLu.com and now has a "novel" that he proceeded to spam to a wide variety of articles. I sort of made some tags on the pages, but the coding on the actual discussion and elsewhere looks all mesed up. DreamGuy 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixulated. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much. DreamGuy 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Threats[edit]

Your unjustified threat to get me banned fro trolling should not go without a response. There was clear consensus some time ago to include a link to the limerick in the De minimis article. I can't see what is wrong with this even - Jersyko was content. I hope you appreciate the irony of your over the top comment. Albatross2147 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Over the top? Unjustified? Trolling? Irony? - aren't Albatrosses supposed to be harbingers of bad luck or is that only if you shoot one? I think if you don't alter your tone you will find out where the bad luck enters the equation. Giano 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked. Essentially, this is a wholly inappropriate external link that this editor wanted actually in the article. By being noisy and obnoxious for a good, long time, he got the talk page participants to toss him the sop of an external link. This, to him, is consensus. The link is not related to the concept of law, and I suspect it may even be clumsy page rank boosting. If Bishonen doesn't keep it gone, I will. Geogre 22:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada again[edit]

User:Alkalada has continued the moment his block expired.

Also I hate to see this. After Alkalada kept attacking and insulting another Slavic Moslem user calling him a traitor because he did not want bad for the Serbs, he wrote "Dude, answer me your fucking dickhead." (after the block) He wasn't warned nor his block prolonged because of this. --PaxEquilibrium 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...and he also keeps deleting these *bad* parts of talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 13:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I made a misstake because I was really upset there. So, I took that away because I knewed I made a misstake and please dont repeate that all the time.

As for my edits, I have invited you to the talk page in every single edit I made and I will also post sources which I will find today and put it in the articles. If you want to talk then talk to me and in the talk pages, dont talk with the moderators, if you want to point out, then good, say it to me at the talk pages and lets find a solution which will take both evidence and veriability in account.

Okey? Alkalada 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"I thought I'd better hit you before he did. He's in much better shape."[edit]

Hi, Bishonen. That quotation (which I hope I've produced accurately) is from High Society, and probably also from The Philadelphia Story, when the heroine, who is due to be married the next day, behaves imprudently with a man, and her ex-husband knocks the man down, in front of her furious fiancé, and then whispers those words to him, as he helps him to his feet.

So what's the relevance? It's my request that you'd keep an eye on poor Gordon. Gordon really doesn't mean any harm, but he just won't stop arguing and arguing and arguing, and he annoys people, and knows it, but doesn't seem prepared to try and change. I've thought of that quotation several times in my recent dealings with him, feeling that it would be a kindness to block him for 24 hours, just to prevent someone else from blocking him for a month. Though of course I recognized that it wouldn't be a valid reason for a block! So I wasn't asking you to unblock him, but just to try and make sure that things didn't get worse for him. Gordon likes to have the last word, and I'm sure he found it frustrating when people would post to him that he was wrong, and that if he argued that he was right he'd be blocked.

I have no complaints with what you did. I think it's more than likely that the anon was Gordon, though if he says it wasn't, I'll believe him. If he asks me to unprotect, I'll unprotect. I think he got a bit of a raw deal, and he was definitely goaded after he was told he wasn't allowed to argue for his links.

Sorry I'm not around more. Hope all is well with you. Musical Linguist 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. But I don't get it about Gordon's block. According to the log, he was last blocked for a month on March 13.[85] Nearly two months ago. And yet he hasn't edited since, except his Talk. (Or he was, he's not editing at all now.) That may not be a bad thing.. but how does that work? Is he still blocked? I don't see any active autoblocks. Anyway, you're missed, ML! Bishonen | talk 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Lost and forelorn[edit]

My God, where ARE you? Don't leave us here on the cold wiki, all alone! We miss you. It's been days :-(... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you can abandon ship but complain when Bishy takes a little time off? Pot... Kettle... mirror. :P (Concur tho, Bish whassup? is all ok?) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Just the wikiblues and a little wikibreak, back in the sandbox soon. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Glad to hear it. Have fun, come back refreshed, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, can I peek in?[edit]

Hi. Sorry to interrupt your rest again and I will understand if you do not but I would really love your take on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Anynobody fishing for my Real Life identity? seeing as you are familiar with the parties involved. This might just be my own stupid foot-bullet. But still. Thanks. --Justanother 01:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. An admin told me soon after I arrived here that you cannot make anyone "change their mind" here. I hope that this was my last attempt at that and I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I could have just done it myself in the beginning and that is what I should have done just as soon as I realized that he would not. That plant looks a bit dry, let me get it some water. --Justanother 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking the cure. No more intemperate actions from me. --Justanother 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oi![edit]

Have you remembered to switch back on? Giano 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I have gone to bed - what do you want? Giano 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Bedsheet patterns. El_C 22:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't be crude EL C! - Bishonen dearheart could you please knock off a quick page on Becky Sharp no hurry, anytime before I get up tomorrow morning will do, I want to refer to her in my new page and saying Becky Sharpish to have an effect will need to be blue. There is a page Becky Sharp but it's not precise enough. Thanks a lot Giano 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
What the...?(!) El_C 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You couldn't mention which new page? You seem to have some five or ten of them going. What aspect of Miss Sharp's delightful personality do you need emphasized? And look what you did--you shocked the bunnyrabbits on El C's chaste bedlinen! Bishonen | talk 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Oh very well, a stub for you. Not sure about the name, just move it if you like. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
I am overcome by curiosity. There are bunnyrabbits on Elsie's sheets??? And how, precisely, are sheets ever wanton? Unless they have Chinese menus printed on them? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Also bambies. Exclaim this. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC).


Image:Image:14thC manuscript Prose Edda.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:14thC manuscript Prose Edda.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was in 2004! Do you take me for some kind of memory artist? I did tag it, with {{PD-old}}. I mean, 14th century is sort of old, by my standards. But I don't remember where I downloaded it from. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Bish, I deleted the local version because it was already moved to Commons back in October, and it's already used across other wikis. It's not your problem anymore ;) Love, Phaedriel - 04:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, clever little user! For whose problem by now, please see this ANI thread. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
Ouch, I had completely missed that ruckus... I'll get me a coffee and read it all (too much text, too late in the morning... Phaedriel - 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
These things are weird. It's Vogon logic: "We had the plans for the hyperspace bypass at the regional office at Alpha Centauri. It's not our fault if you people don't bother to go check." The image that had a proper tag did not have anyone update the tag when the tag monitors changed the tags, and so now the old tag has become incomprehensible to the new generation of taggers, and therefore it is a copyvio! Yeah, Snorri Sturlusson's great-great-great-great-great-great-great- (take a breath) great-great- grand-nephew is upset. (Bots can't read. Bots can't reason. Bots shouldn't be anyone's master.) Geogre 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Call me a bookkeeper, but it's just useful to know which of the four codices the image is from. Dr Zak 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia: No personal attacks[edit]

In my continued efforts to resolve the conflicts at WP:NPA, I have discussed another potential compromise version with the editors active on the policy's talk page. That version, located at Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal has been tentatively accepted by those editors currently involved in the discussion. However, I would value your input as to whether this proposed policy satisfies your concerns.

Obviously, it is impossible for the policy page to be perfect. As has been noted in the talk page discussion, there is no way to write a policy that will prevent editors — on either side of the debate — from taking extreme positions in regard to actual content or its removal. But as one of the editors involved in the rejection of the previous attempt at promoting a compromise version, I would like to hear from you before I consider contacting the protecting administrator regarding promotion of the proposed version.

Regards, Serpent's Choice 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to spam me (your words! not mine!) :) :) :)

First, I would like you to thank you for clarifying that I have not done any significant posting on AN/I.

I have no desire to post frivolous or spurious charges on AN/I, nor wast admins' time.

I believe I have opened requests there twice (not positive), once because I was told that I should; and once because I truly felt harassed, due in part to the creation of false SOCKS and SUSPECTED SOCKS pages against me and then being followed around when I tried to get help. I'm still spinning up-to-speed on wiki policies and procedures.

I think your proposal is a good one, and alas, I too think it is doomed to fail. As you appear to have been keeping an eye on things, you're clearly aware of the frustration and tension and the promises made and broken. I've even attempted compromise and agreements myself.

For my part, you don't even have to ask. I have no intention of filing AN/I complaints against any editor, unless recommended and supported by a neutral admin. As I said above, my recent call for help, was in self-perceived desperation at being publicly accused of something I was not doing. Having seen far too many games being played with logs and out-of-context citations and lists of frivolous NPA, CIVIL (etc) warnings, I could only imagine the huge fabrications which could be made of my initial Lsi_admin account. (by the way, could that be deleted please? thanks).

I do believe that some editors here are intent on POV editing, but as an admin pointed out "that will be shown over time through logs". It is not something which can be established by one or two dozen edits. I, for one, have no desire to have my username associated with controversy and spurious allegations of crying wolf.

I am here as a neutral party, with only NPOV interests. You might notice a recent 3O opinion that I gave in support of a citation as RS which I believe supported Smee's position. (I saw a 3O request in my field of expertise and I gave an NPOV opinion based on that industries perception.)

I do acknowledge personality conflict and I have been looking inward to understand why I am reacting instead of responding. I have been embarrassed more than once after taking a break and coming back to see what I had typed. It is not a pleasant experience to return and see that I have let it become personal.

Obviously you felt the need to leave a message on my userpage, and thus I have clearly stepped across the line of what you consider reasonable. For that I do apologize.

I'm assuming you are not requesting that I never post any responses to anything on AN/I but are only suggesting that I not participate in cat fighting. For that you have my assurance, regardless of what any of the others do.

Best Regards, Peace in God.

-john Lsi john 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ps: I also invite you to hold me to a higher standard of conduct. Please feel free to box-my-ears and recommend that I go get a cup of coffee, any time you feel I am not editing from a clean space. Thanks again. Lsi john 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for Lsi John.
No, I did not mean to imply that you've edited inappropriately. I'm concerned about the way you're placed, rather than about how you've edited. The reason I included you in the Gang of Four is more that I feel an undertaking from you would make it easier for the others to agree, too. Sorry to be treating you as a burnt offering, and do have that coffee in any case. I took a look at the "Lsi admin" account--first I've heard of it. Accounts can't in fact be removed from the database, I'm afraid. Userpages can, though. Normally, the associated user talk page will not be deleted, only the userpage. This is for the sake of the History... still, the very existence of that talkpage was a newbie mistake, and if it's important to you, I will delete it. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm content to claim the title offered by User:Krator using the userbox "reformed vandal", as long as it isn't going to be used against me. My first (and only?) edit, using that account, was made without any knowledge of the existence of a large wiki-community. My concern was when it recently got tagged as a SOCK and ABUSIVE and whatever else was being tossed around due to 'admin' being in the username. I've since realized that admins look and see those charges for the silly nonsense they are, but at the time I didn't know that it was simply a psychological game being played.
As for 'how Im placed', I'm not sure and I won't ask what you mean. Its not important. For the record, I'm not a Scientologist and until yesterday didn't even realize that Scientology was different from Christian Science (I'm not familiar with CS either).
Thank you for clarifying.
Peace in God. Lsi john 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't specifically address the usertalk page issue. I was addressing what I believed to be the issues where I had specifically been involved. My request that you "pull me up short" was intended to be a catch-all for anything I might do on-wiki that you find objectionable. I was attempting to close the door, not leave it open, by giving you the full right to decide if I had broken the spirit of your proposal.

For clarification: I will not engage in gossip and baiting commentary on any userpages about any other users. Specifically, I will not participate in conversations with JA on either of our userpages where we are discussing the actions or any perceived adjenda of Smee or Anynobody.

I was going to post this on your consolidated report, but decided that it would be more appropriate for you to update your own report, if you feel it needs updated.

Lsi john 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John, your "catch-all" and your all-round good intentions were clear to me, and I meant to make them clear on ANI as well. I'm sorry you think there was room for misunderstanding. Perhaps I overdid the conciseness—I had an uncomfortable feeling I was using up too much ANI space as it was. I'll copy this statement to your page. Is there anywhere else you'd like me to put it? Bishonen | talk 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Sometimes this text medium just plain sucks. I was only trying to clarify that I felt that I had addressed the user-talk page issue with my 'catch all'. Anyway, discussing it further makes it seem more important than it is. Why is it that 80% of our time is spent on 20% of the material? :) Peace. Lsi john 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Bishonen, thank you for extending an outreach of understanding and giving of your time in a heated issue between multiple editors. Your efforts are most appreciated by all. Yours, Smee 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Answered on my talk. Smee 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
    • You may want to post some sort of update about this agreement and your helpful "spam" message and its results, at WP:ANI. Smee 01:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Good idea. I will tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 01:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Okay. Smee 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:Aquitaniaposter.PNG[edit]

Hello, Bishonen. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Aquitaniaposter.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen/Emigration. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in my fucking sandbox. Where I was writing a big-ass article. With images. So I can't try out any images until the sandbox is mainspaced, is that it? Let me get this straight: would you rather I didn't write any big articles? Any articles at all? At least not any illustrated articles? Bishonen | talk 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
Bots have no brains, which rather stymies an attempt to beat them out. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but I've written to the man holding its leash. User:Eagle 101. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
I've said it before: if you can't check the actual images one by one by hand, then you can't check the images at all. Bots signal people, and the people are the ones who want to be "fixing" things, not the poor schlubs who used the images. Notice how this one is working, though. The bot goes through and then tells the person using the image that it must be deleted. This is backwards. Let the person holding the leash give the command for the dog to bite, and not let the public beware that the dog bites everyone unless the owner can be persuaded to hold it back. Geogre 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Bishonen, I just read this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal__to_some_editors_of_Scientology_articles. My observation is that otherwise patient admins become cranky and impulsive from the sheer volume of complaints on ANI, be they justified or not. I think ANI should be abolished and incidents be dealt with pages specific to the type of incident or with individual admins. I think ANI is a bad idea period.--Fahrenheit451 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Dividing ANI into separate subpages according to subject is a proposal that comes up from time to time, not least because it would make it easier to watch subjects in one's specific area of interest. Still, I suppose it's felt that there is value in a system that encourages everybody to eyeball everything, because so far none of these proposals have made much headway. The place for you to write up your suggestion would be the joint talk page of AN and ANI, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I have to say that's not a very lively or widely read page, though. There is currently a somewhat relevant thread on it, "AN/I is too long". Bishonen | talk 17:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I did post a proposal there for commentary Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abolition_of_ANI.--Fahrenheit451 23:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use image use[edit]

Re [86]: Ok, that was out of line. Using profanity at Eagle_101 is inappropriate. What his bot is doing is appropriate. Working in a sandbox is fine. But, what should be done is that the images you want to be used should be linked, rather than actually displayed. If you need an image for sizing purposes, then use Image:Example.jpg and leave a note to yourself in the code of the sandbox pointing to the actual image, when you are ready to go live to mainspace.

Lots and lots of people use sandboxes. The problem is two fold. First, our policies prohibit the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace, and there's no exception for sandboxes. Second, lots of people's sandboxes become old. Where do we place the cutoff on allowable fair use? 10 days? 30? 60 since last edit? The Foundation has made it policy that the cutoff is not to allow them at all. --Durin 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Well then the Foundation is a fool! and Durin "profanity" nasty word - please do not be so bourgeois it sets my teeth on edge. Giano 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Giano, it is a question of copyright law, they are not doing it out of ignorance. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not talk to me of the law, the law is maleable - it is designed to be so - who do you think cares an iota if Bishonen has a ancient picture in user space or main space - is the world to suddenly stop? are we all to go instantly to hell? does anyone care what Bishonen does with a mouldy old poster? NO! They do not - just the image police here who fail to assess the situation clearly. Look at the picture and make an informed intelligent decision! God gave you a brain. Giano 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't suppose anyone would appreciate my sense of humor if I said "Giano, your remarks assume facts not in evidence and are original research"? Maybe I've just been editing too many contentious articles. It all just struck me as amusing. Carry on. I've probably managed to annoy both of you, without really intending to annoy either. I'm good at that. Lsi john 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So long as you are not bourgeois like Durin you can say what you like Giano 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Giano, how are your personal attacks warranted? Durin was merely explaining the justification for removing images from editor's sandboxes...that's all. --Iamunknown 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a personal attack at all, saying "fucking" is a "profanity" in certain circles is considered bourgeois, if to be bourgeois is an insult, that is not my problem. Giano 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess...most people would probably consider it profane. You did seem to speak with disdain towards Durin, I guess that was what I was sensing, though that is not really a personal attack (but it is rather uncivil).  ::shrug:: --Iamunknown 20:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Most people under 50 in the more educated and civilized pockets of Europe, Iamunknown, say the word "F" without a second thought, maybe not to their grandmothers but to equals on a daily basis several times. "I have fucked up" - "Fuck knows" - "what the fuck" - or just simply "fuck off". I know certain areas of USA are more sensitive but all my friends, who I phnoe daily, in New York and Washington and Chicago and Tokyo seem to be as foul mouthed as their European counterparts - so I expect it will reach you all before long. Giano 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Whoever said that I am unaccustomed to the word "fuck"? I didn't. Hell, I am, at work, with friends, at town...I just don't use it often, and usually not with people whom I intend to work with (i.e. everyone on the encyclopedia?). --Iamunknown 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
...and I'm sure your Grandmother is very proud of you. Giano 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. --Iamunknown 21:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, FCOL - yes, technically someone somewhere may have copyright in that image (although it has now been tagged at {{PD-US}} based on the physical characteristics of the ship displayed) and using it in a sandbox may technically be infringing their copyright. But do you seriously think that anyone is going to care enough for that image (an ancient Cunard poster) for it to be a real problem - as distinguished from being identified as a problem by the kind of petty bureaucrat who likes to stick little labels on things, tick little boxes on their voluminous forms, and scold others for breaking their ever-expanding list of rules?

And, yes, Bishonen said a naughty word. I'm sure she will wash her own mouth out with soap later. Perhaps the bot will now also be feeling contrite, and can be programmed to say a few "Hail Mary"s and "Our Father"s? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Please don't lecture me on how to speak, Durin. Ponder the distinction between using profanity at Eagle 101, and using it while talking to Eagle 1. Has the Wikimedia Foundation decided that even a miniscule saving of time for a bot, or a human image remover—saving themselves the trouble of looking at the History to see whether a sandbox is actively edited —outweighs a great inconvenience for a content creator? And that deciding a cut-off point is too.. I don't know.. taxing? That's rather discouraging for writers, though it may make bots happy. Thank you for the information, though. BTW, you'll all be glad to hear that User:DreamGuy has discovered new dating information, retagged the image, which is actually PD, and reverted the bot. Great work, thanks, DreamGuy! Bishonen | talk 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
I think Durin's request that you be civil was very reasonable, your use of profanity was uncivil. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S., my message was directed at Durin and DreamGuy, not at the jury converging on this page. HighInBC and Iamunknown, could you please go share your running commentary where it's more appreciated? Do I keep popping up on either of your pages and give my opinion when you're trying to have a conversation? Well? Do I? Well, then. Please desist. I request it as a courtesy. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

If you allow me to quickly butt in, lady and gentlemen, I did a little online research and discovered this website which, as you see, displays the poster in question and also features a slightly different, black & white version. I have contacted the webmaster, who has confirmed to me that this poster was originally printed in the US in 1921 and the artwork was also featured in postcards (the b&w version happens to be one, in fact). Apparently, the 1922 mods could have not been appreciated in this sectional view, but anyway, the {{PD-US}} tag is therefore correct. I have also been pointed that all this can be confirmed by consulting the book "The Cunard fleet 1840-2004" by Elspeth Wills. Hope this helps to settle the matter for good. Cheers, Phaedriel - 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
(PS. Bish, this may also mean you'd probably have to correct the reference in the article at your sandbox, since the black & white image appears as dated in 1913 there. That could have not been possible, as the sectional view clearly shows the oil tanks at the bottom, and the Aquitania was converted from coal to oil-burning on December 1919. Hugs! :) Phaedriel - 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You are clever! Thanks very much, Phaedriel. Yes, the "1913" was more a sandbox guess, I wasn't intending to say such a thing in mainspace. I'm going to ask for the b&w postcard version to be deleted, since a better version exists. I don't suppose you are a Commons admin, hint hint? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Wow. I had no idea anything here would escalate into people throwing poo at each other, but then some people on Wikipedia seem to forget this is an encyclopedia and not some social clique with enemies and allies. For the record, I am 100% behind the idea of following all copyright laws to the best of our ability (and I thoroughly disagree with Giano's comments above about how the law is malleable -- no, not in most copyright cases it isn't), but I think bots and people going through tagging tons of images clumsily isn't really a good way to do it either. Whenever I see bot activity on some page on my watchlist (and Bish's was from leaving some comments recently) I like to double check them. That's why I tried to look into this one, because it looked old enough to me to be public domain, and it turns out it is. I appreciate Phadriel taking the time to come up with definitive evidence of that. On another page on my watchlist that same bot happened to get something right, so I went and cleaned up after it and removed the image from some other pages it didn't belong on either. DreamGuy 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, he said poo. Where are the language police?
Anyway, pace DreamGuy, the law - and more particularly its application to a particular set of facts - is seldom as clear and definite as he may think. Even if this was an infringement of someone's copyright, would they bother taking any legal action as a result? I rather suspect not. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone not bothering to take action (either because they don't know, don't care, or can't afford to sue in every single casse) in no way makes the action legal or moral. And it is pretty clear cut, as a matter of fact. DreamGuy 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I had a rather definitive statement, but it got lost in the section that didn't become a hotbed. I agree with Giano that law is not a binary operator. It is not "legal/illegal." If it were, the world would not be infested with lawyers. No, law is an activity and not a state. It is an action, an interpretation, a process, and not a simple attribute. As such, it requires people and minds, and therefore any -bot approach is wrongheaded. People have to look. A bot has to flag the bot operator to go assess. As Giano says, we are supposed to have brains, and we have to use them. The bot need not flag the person who last edited a page with an image on it, even though these devices were introduced to warn uploaders that they had missed a bit. Instead, it needs to flag the person wishing to make a change -- the person wishing to delete an image's placement. Then that person has to think and judge and then communicate as a person. It cannot be automatic nor automated. Geogre 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Friendly Neighborhood Lurker[edit]

Hey there, Bishonen. I just wanted to leave you a quick note, then I'll go back to my life of nonexistence. You and Bishzilla crack me up. You and the monster seem to know just where to be when things get overly dramatic. Thanks for keeping humor alive! SGT 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

'Zilla know where to be always! Spies everywhere! Ear to the ground! [/'Zilla demonstrates concept, misjudges distance, ear meets ground with shattering force, little users flee in all directions.] bishzilla ROARR!! 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I, too, as a fellow lurker, would like to declare myself a Bishonnen and Bishzilla fan. I admit I am a bit obsessed with reading talk pages and general wiki drama, but this particular talk page tends to make me smile, occasionally breaking into a chuckle. Maybe sometines a laugh. Regards, Wolfgang Deutsch

/Zilla smiles in majestic approval, stuffs little lurkers in special lurker pocket, peers into its depths. Comfy, little users? WLAN working in there? Bishzilla | ROARR!! 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Loose end[edit]

Not to start anything major, but I would not want you left with the impression that I throw accusations around carelessly. Something early; something recent. I have lots more in-between. But I understand that the real point is not that I throw accusations around carelessly but that I throw them incessently. I do believe that I have finally been heard and I will tone it way down. If there are future actions warranted, I will follow the standard WP:DR routes.

The essence of good management is CARING what goes on. -- L. Ron Hubbard

Thanks for caring, as a manager and as a person. --Justanother 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
  1. An Arbcomm dealing primarily with rulings on what types of sources can be used in an article.
  2. A User personally attacking me with misperceptions instead of addressing particular concerns about sourced or unsourced content in an article.
  • But at any rate, to Bishonen, thank you again for your outreach. I believe you may have misunderstood my response, from your "summary" on ANI:
  1. I will do my best to avoid posting to ANI, though I was not the one who posted the majority of the incidents...
  2. I have already removed the others' talk pages from my watchlist.
  3. And the only reason I have to refuse binding myself to not discussing other individuals, is because the other user does not wish to communicate via email.

Smee 08:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Hi, guys. I hear you, in both cases. Your wiki-loyalties are your own affair, Smee, but for my part I remain unimpressed by the virtuous assurances of the "other user." (Incidentally I notice Coelacan seems to feel the same way.[87]). Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for your polite response. I cannot control, however, if Anynobody does not wish to communicate in a medium other than talk pages. Smee 04:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen I don't want you to think I'm not acknowledging what you are saying. The point I was trying to make is that I was already doing what you said in the original suggestion when you made it. If you go through my discussions with others concerning the editing habits of Justanother, Lsi john, or any other editor has been about only that. Looking at some of the other stuff I see on WP:ANI on any given day, pointing out another editor's perceived difficulty with some of the general concepts of Wikipedia is very tame. Anynobody 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MEHVE - Nausicaa of the valley of the winds.jpg[edit]

Hello, Bishonen. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MEHVE - Nausicaa of the valley of the winds.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen/Sicilian Christmas. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

oh well, it's an ill wind that....I had forgotten about that how young we all were once! When wikipedia was fun. Giano 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Speak for yourself, I was never that young. Why aren't you online? I saw you withdrawing Harriet Arbuthnot from FAC, but apparently you're not to have any control over it. Hmm. In that case, I rather wonder why ALoan bothered to ask you before he nommed it. Creating content is no fun any more, I agree. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Well it seems to be back on FAC but attracting little interest, I was actually withdrawing it because I was furious at an incident in another section of FAC where the footnote citing zealots of FARC where complaining a page was over footnoted - so I was pointing out that they cannot have it both ways. If you ere thinking of a return to FAC I would advise against it.

I think my next submission will just be the footnotes and refs with no text. That should meet the criteria very well. Sadly people don't seem to realise that one can make a series of refs and quotes say anything you want them to. In fact my next page using refs will factually and accurately with full cites show that Wellington was a bisexual psychopath who defeated Napoleon because he was perverted pornographer and Wellington wanted to further his own base sexual gratification. The whole of the Napoleonic wars were series of amorous adventures. Napoleon a noted philanderer <true> having traded his wife in for a younger more sexy model<true> raided Europe collecting pictures of naked ladies <true>. The Italians were very cross <true>, because they were their naked ladies <true>, conspired to help overthrow the pornographer Napoleon <true>, in the meantime Wellington who had moved into Napoleon's sister's house <true> (he had seen a statue of her naked on her sofa <true>) stole Napoleon's mistress <true>). Napoleon was so cross he escaped from Elba <true>. During the ensuing battle of Waterloo <true> which we now know was over a ownership of a mistress - Wellington placed the man who stole his brother's wife in such a position he had his leg shot off <true>. Wellington won the battle and then returned home and wooed the most Mrs Arbuthnot <true> as a result of his success with her she gave him a good write up for posterity in her diary <true> Once Wellingtom had the good write up Mrs Arbuthnot suddenly died <true>. With undue haste Wellington formed a relationship with Mr Arbithnot instead <true>. The two men set up home together <true>. The couple (as they now were) lived together until separated only by death<true> All of that could be reliably sourced and no one could deny it because it would all be reliably referenced - which is why we need authors to sort the refs and explain them -I just wish someone would explain that on FAC. Giano 09:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Heck no, I wasn't thinking of a return in that sense, my last nom was kind of traumatic. Or maybe I traumatize easily, I dunno. But my next vote will be modelled on one presently on Indonesia, I think, which reads in full "Support because it has over 123 footnotes" (well, I copyedited it). I trust you will give me occasion to pen such a vote for you, Giacomo! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

That bot is stupid(ly engineered or run or used)[edit]

I just had Gnomebot try to replace as "unfree" a title page from 1590. The image had {{pd-old}} on it, and it obviously came into existence 150-200 years before copyright even existed, but there it had been not tagged but actually removed by a brainless bot. The result of the -bot's actions is that a person with a wild hair who wants tags to be just so is leaving to people like me, who neither know nor care about the very latest fashion in tags, the change that he thinks is essential. Villainous and counterproductive. Geogre 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

xBTW[edit]

Great fuckin movie! El_C 12:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page revert[edit]

Thanks for reverting my talk page. You reverted it a couple of seconds before I got to it, and CurranH warned the user a few seconds before I could :) Guess I just have to be quicker on the draw! -- Huntster T@C 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, don't say that; you thanked me real fast! ;-) But the vandal was the fastest of us all, check their page blanking spree.[88] Absolutely no reason to keep an account like that around.[89]. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Indeed, I was looking at that action on their part. Always surprised by those that care only for vandalism. C'est la vie... -- Huntster T@C 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The South Shall Rise Again![edit]

I have two rebels today. First, we have Allan Stewart (Jacobite). He was, uh, a Jacobite, but of the Rob Roy sort. Then I have Bartholomew Steer, and if I were not lazy, I'd seek additional references in EP Thompson for him, as he is an absolutely perfect target for Marxist history of the sloppy (Geoffrey Hill) or sharp (Thompson) or bizarre (New Historicist) sort. Geogre 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the effrontery to mean to refer to Christopher Hill, my good man? Bishonen | talk 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I do, indeed, and not the nice and devout and great poet. I never like it when I confuse the hasty historian with the perspicacious poet, but I do so regularly. (And, actually, I'm quite capable of antique condescension when I'm trying to paraphrase out the DNB's even worse sneering.) Geogre 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I like your Bartholomew! Sad fate, of course. Dead at 29. One senses in your source a suggestion that these rebels ought to have the sense to sit in a study and puff on a pipe and edit the DNB, instead of all that silly agitating. Don't you think so? Bishonen | talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
"Sharp"? El_C 21:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, crumbs. Yes. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
I never said I was glued — oh wait, yes I did. El_C 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(Compare my edit.[90]) Bishonen | talk 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Hmm, I didn't know that John Walter was that distinguished, but I should have guessed. Then again, one of the Wiki Projects is to embed -- no lie -- CV material for search sites, so everyone will be owed a Wikipedia article soon. Geogre 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, or rather that he had it good as a carpenter, so he needed to tend to his trade and wait for the Labour government to come to power in a few hundred years. Also, he seems to dislike not the uprising, but the flavor of it. Poor fool! Didn't he realize that socialism wouldn't work? It's just so tiresome that none of these people before Marx had learned that! Geogre 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And your Jacobite has already received "cleanup". It's a pity that people will refer to an actually helpful small edit in such a hackles-raising way. I bet they wonder why there's no gratitude. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, in this case, I don't mind. There was another article already -- under a name that had set up zero redirects, so I couldna find i'. It's an article that leans entirely on the web for its information, and on Stevenson, so it has some rosy romantic glow to it. Mine should probably be the bulk of the article, but I don't mind if one of the others does the merge. I think I'm not supposed to do the merge, as I might be tempted to merge via fire and desolation. Geogre 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only plead that I don't see the extreme offense in the term; I'm happy to accept suggestions for a terse edit summary to describe this kind of little add-some-links, refine-some-categories, correct-some-typos gnoming. Choess 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Copy-edit"? "Tweaks"? "Tweaking"? "Minor fixes"? None of those imply that the article was unclean, dirty, messy, or poorly written before it got scrubbed down. Speaking for myself, I get such bad vibes from "cleanup" that I don't think I've ever used the word in an edit summary, not even when I have been cleaning up a mess of prose. The authors of Wikipedia:Cleanup also seem to receive associations of mess and bad writing from the word: "Welcome to the Wikipedia Cleanup section! Please report messy articles below, and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (ex. grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.)" Bishonen | talk 02:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
Yes, much appreciated, thank you. A little more oil on the social gears generally doesn't hurt around here. Choess 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
El C's latest edit isn't showing up right now. Database FUBAR? Anyway, Geogre, did you see the nice remark on Talk:Bartholomew Steer? Bishonen | talk 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC).
I just did. I owe Alabamaboy a read, too, and so I was gratified and guilt-stricken simultaneously. It's rather like peanut butter and chocolate: two flavors that make their own experience. Geogre 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if our medievalists are still about? In the Steer article, I was pleased that I didn't have to write an article on the land of cockayne, as Cockayne was linked. Well, click on it. Ok, so perhaps I needed instead to be more formal and make it Land of Cockayne. Well, click on that. Sigh. I should have known. The moment I saw that it was blue, I just should have taken it absolutely for granted that it was a blind alley, that it was a link to someone's bubblegum card or webcomix. Geogre 22:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors in repose after a hard day adding tags and infoboxes.
Cockayne (disambiguation)Cockaigne? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

At least all that stuff is blue (and none of it is a band, amazing!) Whereas the Big Old Candy Mountain is red! :-( Bishonen | talk 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Big Rock Candy Mountain? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, rock? OK. Bishonen | talk 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

What's more, complaining here gets results. There is now a nice dab at Cockayne, and I did an egged Cockaigne|Cockayne in the article anyway. My usual spelling is "Cockaigne" (because I learned about it in my eME class, when I had to translate "The Land of Cockaigne"), but I was quoting, there. Furthermore, Cloud Cuckooland is now properly redirected. When I was in the lieberry doing research for these articles, I tried to make sure that we didn't already have them before I went to the bother, so I was a bit mortified to find out that I was duplicating, but people aren't always very good about setting up redirects. Geogre 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a coincidence, I've spent the last day just over the border from Cockaigne in Topsy-Turvy World where they have similarly tasty roofing but a disdain for the toilet. Yomanganitalk 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, be careful that you don't wander into Acrostic land, because the people there are just plain weird. They have their heads in their stomachs. Also, although I'm sure that Antipodes directs us right to Australia, "Antipodeans" were supposed to be very like the acrostics. They walked on their hands and wrote with their feet -- being upside down and all. Geogre 15:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I went to merge the Stewart articles, but how do you merge two pages that starkly contradict each other (see the final paragraph of each) and where only one (yours, Geogre) has any source? The bit about America and the Seven Years War sounds seductively circumstantial... but it could be credulously taken from one of the two novels involved. I couldn't find any Reliable Source about Stewart doing anything after the murder, though I guess that may say more about me than Google. I'm no judge of websites. Anyway, I lost momentum. Bishonen | talk 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I believe the DNB author that the mentions of Stewart after the murder are all fiction. What's more, he was a romantic figure, and we both know how romantic figures travel the world twice round while inhabiting an unmarked grave in Flanders. Stewart was a minor man, and the legend grew after he was safely away, so he had no reason or ability to pop up somewhere to say, "Here I am!" I absolutely don't believe that that particular man, with his very common name, came to America, given his circumstances (under a death warrant in the UK would tend to make one shy of contact with the English). Geogre 01:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bishonen. The merge looks good to me, and you saw what I was talking about: people wanting to write a life to suit a novel. Geogre 11:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL[edit]

The External links policy page seems to have been taken over by people who are making changes without discussing them first, and then reverting claiming consensus and need to discuss if the new sections want to be changed. It's getting freaking obnoxious there. Right now someone went out of their way to suddenly explicitly ENCOURAGE people to link to blog sites, when that was always on the list of to be avoided sites. Pages of that importance to the project should not be tampered with lightly, and the person doing it is leaving deceptive edit comments claiming consensus whenever he reverts to his version. I hope that you and others can go take a look. DreamGuy 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waltonsdvd.jpg[edit]

Hello Bishonen, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Waltonsdvd.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bishonen/Archive 10. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia:Admin vitriol formula[edit]

You missed one of the jokes, although I don't know how to remedy that and keep your (quite valid) point in: The formula, as it was, featured an anagram for "ROUGE" as it was. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, having a Stupid Day! /me starts working on extending the formula into an anagram for EYE SHADOW. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
I fixed it for you. How's the current version look? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 :-D Bishonen | talk 16:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

Got a month?[edit]

Hello, Landmark Education could use a hand.

Two editors are insisting that material be included, which has been repeatedly discussed and rejected by multiple editors.

The two editors are failing (or refusing) to address the challenges and concerns posed in discussion and are simply tag-team reverting their preferred version.

I have requested page protection and I am currently at 3RR, so I cannot edit there any longer.

This has been an on going long term slow edit war for some time.

Now, rather than address the concerns, one of the editors is trying to tie my original username (that had admin in it) into the discussion.

Is it appropriate to slur in a reference to my original one-post username? She isn't even referring to the correct username and has decided that since all the history has been deleted (for a username that never existed) that something untoward is going on.

[diff 1]

[and 4x here]

I think this is counterproductive and needs to stop. These two editors are refusing to address the concerns and are stopping to trying to discredit by implication.

We could use some help there.

Thanks again. Lsi john 16:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I got a sec? I'm reading the talkpage, I'll get back to you around... hmm... /me scrolls down to check on size... oh, around Christmas. Unless you have a suggestion for where I can find an up-to-date informative summary and overview somewhere round there? Regards, Bishonen | talk 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
HAHAHAHAHAHA Exactly! *section header here changed*
The overwhelming concensus is that the material in question is inappropriate in its current form to be included in the article. If you jump down to the LANDMARK section of the discussion, and then scroll down near the first section break, you will see the arguments a bit more formalized.
Jeff. and Ester. are refusing (or failing) to address the specific concerns and are simply saying.. its sourced so it can be included. They are not addressing the question of 'relevance?' 'significance?' .. NPOV bias by mis-representing the citations by cherry-picking comments... etc. They simply revert their old 'preferred' (by them) version. Lsi john 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume that MedCab is the next step. In the mean time Ive asked for Page Protection and I'm asking you if ER could be formally cautioned against the direction of slurring that she is headed. I'm not going to cry NPA, but her writing is clearly counter productive and not related to the article discussion. Lsi john 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Formally, no. I'm going to assume good faith, however little others have been doing so. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
Ok. Thank you. I would like to assume good faith as well. It's difficult when the editor inserted (and struck out) the same incorrect username in 4 different places during the same edit before clicking Submit, and worded it as an accident. To me, at the least, it was a counter productive edit.
I brought it to you for an impartial look. I haven't been here long enough to know what is ignored under AGF and what is something that rises to the level of being 'advised against'.
As for the page itself, I have asked for PageProtection, while the discussion and probably MedCab are utilized. My concern is that the two editors are reverting their old preferred version over top of other editors who are making edits, and thus many of those internediate edits are being lost.
Thanks again. Lsi john 18:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed that I wrote to the user—informally—always the best way to start, I think, even though on this occasion it went over like a lead balloon. I have now added a formal warning.
John, I must caution you about using 3RR as an entitlement to revert three times a day, and only being concerned to avoid reverting the dreaded four times. I've seen you imply before that it's all right to revert three times, and now you're doing it again.[91] It isn't all right. It's Edit warring, which is considered harmful. Take a look: The [3RR] rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive....The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars... If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it. (WP:3RR) Bishonen | talk 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC).
I had not seen your post, but I have now. Thank you for taking time to look into the situation.
I'm aware that 3RR does not give cart blanche to revert right up to 3RR and stop and it was not my intention to imply that. In this case, I'd request that you notice that in combination I also requested page protection. That is not justification, as there is none for edit warring, it was simply my rationale at the time.
As you can see from the article talk page, this situation has been going on for quite some time, in a slow motion edit war that has not been making any constructive progress. And as a bedtime read, you can form you own opinion about the efforts being made on the article talk page.
Hopefully, now that the page is protected, everyone will be willing to come to the table to compromise, rather than brute force the material IN -or- OUT. I have said this on the article talk page, and I have specifically (on their user pages and in the article talk page) invited both J and ER to participate. It is clear that they have a very strong opinion that the material should be included. I'm trusting that they will be flexible on how it is worded and that everyone can agree upon a compromise.
Best Regards.
Peace. Lsi john 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like MedCab it is. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-21 Landmark Education Lsi john 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that was unavoidable, but sometimes I wonder what it is we do here, spending more and more time on arguing and less and less on creating content. Anyway, John, you realize the mediator will have the posts of many editors to read, hint, hint? Long posts are not your friends, or theirs. You recollect the person who wrote about "brevity" on your page? Bishonen | talk 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
mmm m m mm m mmmm Lsi john 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
M. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
What do I get for re-naming MedCab to MeowCab? El_C 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You get anything you want as always! But I always thought the present name, Medicine Cabinet, was rather good, why change it... ? Bishonen | talk 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Mmm. Hopefully its better now. Lsi john 18:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Improved. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Second opinion[edit]

Bish, I would much appreciate it, if you have the time, to take a look on Talk:Atheism and tell me if I am being unclear, or somehow conveying the wrong impression, or something. Sections #criticism section and #Deleted content from talk page. The references to Vandalism are due to the Undo of Harlequinn (Harley)'s edit here, and my informing him on the Atheism talk page and his talk page that article talk pages are archived, not deleted. I'd go into more detail, but I'd really prefer you take a look yourself - if you don't have time and would prefer I put together a synopsis, I will do so. Checking his edit summaries will probably go a long way to explaining the situation. Thanks very much - KillerChihuahua?!? 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Yappy. I've been staring at it in growing despair. The bricolage of misundertaken policy fragments is defeating me, I don't know where to start and I don't know which bits are relevant to your question. Look at this red herring in the #criticism section, for instance. Harley writes: "The Wikipedia:Criticism guideline supports the changes I think should be made. Quotes: ..."No article should feature criticism about its topic, as those criticisms are always more appropriate at another location. For example, criticisms of Christianity do not belong in the article on Christianity, but in the articles of Christian-critical groups and concepts."
So I thinks, how very strange, does a guideline (actually an essay, but whatever) really say that, considering it contradicts all policy and all common sense? So I go look it up in the Criticism essay, and, naaah. That quote turns out to be (while correctly quoted) a complete misunderstanding. The essay gives is as one of several examples of an extreme and untenable opinion. Did I mention Harley plucks it out and says it supports him...? I presume in good faith, but what a mess, what a mangrove swamp, what a rhetorician's hell, stuck trying to explain what's wrong with that. And is it even relevant, should I take it between my teeth and run with it, straight up the vertical wall of the Reichstag, or is it one of many, many wrong sticks?
In other words, hell yes, put together a synopsis, give me a compass or better still a GPS unit, for I'm lost. I'm drowning. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Oh darn... Me too. I really should not be so hasty to offer a (unwritten) synopsis, I confess I was counting on your amazing ability to make sense out of mayhem. I will attempt to collate a synopsis and shall return forthwith. (That's a pun - will return forth, with the synopisis; if no one else posts in this section before I get back, it will be the fourth post.) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Goeth fourth and conquerth. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, as you have posted, it is now fifthwith, which if not so punny is more poetic, in a doggeral sort of way (being a dog, I appreciate that.) I will attempt to summarize rather than compile a synopsis. Summary of situation: Harlequinn, a new user, shows remarkable knowledge of obscure wiki-rules, yet utterly lacks comprehensive understanding of same. While merrily citing left and right, he also attacks all and sundry. In short, it is unclear to me whether he is a thoroughly uncivil individual who lacks basic manners, yet is editing in good faith, or is a common garden variety troll, perhaps with previous experience here under another handle. I lack the wit to discern which it is. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You have mail. Bishonen | talk 15:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
Mail received and advice appreciated. I will strongly consider that approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with User[edit]

Hi, Bish, I have been having trouble with a user who has been abusing {{helpme}} notices, and has delivered personal attacks to me, see this, because he has deleted them, and this. He has also has left a note on my page, even though I told him the correct answer numerous times, twice. And, he is going to file an RFC against me. I am seriously thinking about taking matters to the community for him to be banned or take matters in an WP:ANI thread. Anyway, please let me know what you think, and I will come back here for advice. Thanks. Real96 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

DYKW, I will file an ANI thread...Real96 07:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Real. I think I'll weigh in, since I've had some interchange with the user. I'ver told him he's being discussed on ANI. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikistalking editor again[edit]

User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea is full on his old tricks of blind reverting all sorts of changes I made to pages to try to get at me, edit warring, personal attacks and etc. See Dilbert edit here (where he leaves a deceptive edit comment about an infobox and goes back and restores a number of links I had removed almost a month ago); Werewolf fiction here (where he lies and calls my adding a spam template and him removing it as "rvv"); Dragon, again, here, where he couldn't get consensus to restore the links he wanted before so he now removed virtually all rest as "spam," which most certainly was not at all what anyone said on the talk page about THESE links (his links, yes, but these are freaking NEWS articles); Lycanthropy here (and others, most of these have multiple reverts) where he just blind reverted again and giving no justification). This guy is chronically lying about what his edits are to trick anyone who isn't paying attention into thinking he's doing something normal when he's just undoing what I did. DreamGuy 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to look right now. But I'm always reluctant to invoke the "stalking" bugbear—I don't really believe there is such a thing as stalking, unless the edits are pure "nuisance edits". If they are, I'll intervene, you may be sure. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm not stalking you, I'm only following your every move, only to make edits to the contrary of you! El_C 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Aww! Follow me to Niagara Falls, then to Vegas! Bishonen | talk 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC).
Now that's what I'm talking about, again! El_C 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN modified to allow for bullying[edit]

Thank you for reverting the nonsense added to the shunning guideline which called for "difficult editors" to be asked questions which would cause them to "reveal" their "motives" and be used as a "behavior modification technique". Unfortunately, the same editor modified WP:SHUN again so that "pertinent" questions could be asked as a way to "induce" editors to "reveal their aims". Hence, bullying and aggressive questioning of motives is an acceptable tactic to use against an editor who wishes to practice shunning as an alternative to feeding the troll. Watchdog07 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Grrrr! Bishonen | talk 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Another Day, Another Dummy[edit]

Some more troubled souls from the past. First, we have a political tool who was abused by Titus Oates: Miles Prance. After that, we have a man who kept a diary and went all over the place: Jacob Nagle. I have thoughts about writing up Frances Neville (or Frances Neville, Lady Bergavenny), but I really don't think she amounts to more than a stub. Geogre 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the thing with titled people here? Most people in the world don't have them, can we not concentrate on them, even I chose the only Arbuthnot to be a mere Mrs! Giano 20:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Geogre - I can email you the Dictionary of National Biography's stub on France Neville, if you don't already have access to it. --Alf melmac 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Look! I do not want to talk about titled people - I so not want to read about them - I have had enough of titled people to last a life time - and do not say Hey! to me in that fashion - "Good evening Giano! please. Giano 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no. A very good evening and a very good night to you.--Alf melmac 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh never mind, just pretend I never said anything.--Alf melmac 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry: I was off writing. No, I got my stub from the DNB, so it's no better nor worse. Giano: the reason I wrote about her is that she wrote a book of prayers, and I was conscious of the fact that, in my hopscotching through the cemetery of the DNB I had not found very many women to write about. I wanted to find a woman to write about, and I couldn't find a female rebel, so I settled for a woman who doesn't appear to have had a happy marriage. Geogre 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, WikiAlf, thank you for the offer. The way I get my "made to order" articles is by sitting down with the print DNB and looking for fitting folks. I then take notes, rearrange to get out of their format (ick!), try to concentrate on contextualizing, if I can, and then write. Giano, she's at Frances Neville. The other one is a redirect. After all, I need to have something link to the article, as I fear not much would, otherwise. The featured player in all of this, for my money, is Mr. Prance. He's got the name and the misery. Geogre 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm lucky enough to have access to the online DNB, so it was an easy offer. I noticed the red link go blue and checked it out - hence my last post about neverminding it. (btw I prefer to be called Alf, I ended up with that username as I was somehow not allowed to create "Alf", "ALF" or "A.L.F.", if you don't fancy Alf "hey stupid" will do).--Alf melmac 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Women? How about Nancy Prince from Boston who went to Russia with her husband, and was later a misionary in Jamaica?[92] Or Amelia Simmons, author of the first American cookbook?[93] Or Agnes Hungerford, hanged for murdering her first husband in 1523, after the death of her second husband? -- ALoan (Talk) 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks a lot for the e-mails. I will just wait this out for the moment. IRC isn't everything, and I can contribute to wikipedia in other ways. I stole your wikimood as well as your RFA counter. I plan to credit you on my userpage. Thanks, and have a great day. Real96 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

He he, the Zen moods? That's such a coincidence, because just yesterday I was trying to steal your header--your userpage banner that changes--the one with this stuff?--but, no surprise, I'm too clueless. Also I suspect it's not possible, since it's made up of images--right?--whereas what I wanted was to be able to input pithy short texts. ("Roarr" comes to mind.) I guess there's no way of doing that..? No, I thought not. Keep smiling. Bishonen | talk 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
<center>{{Qxz-ads}}</center> will make...
. Thanks. Real96 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The .gif files are a series of still pictures in a display sequence. There is both freeware and commercial software which allows you to edit and build them. But you're correct, you can't simply edit them via wiki and insert new text.
Are you wanting something that does..

R

R R

R R R

R R R O A

R R R O A A R R R R ? Lsi john 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good thought there! Even better on Bishzilla's page, I guess. So, yes, I am, but even more, I want a text-based one where I could input My Thoughts, that would take turns to appear. Nothing wrong with if they waggle about, blink, have variable rainbow coloring, and shoot stars, either, but I'd take plain text. The essential thing would be that I could insert new thoughts when inspiration came. Couldn't be based on gifs, no. /'zilla sees in mind's eye frantic coding breaking out in honorable competition among salon regulars. Is pleased. Stares pointedly at Puppy and Bunchofgrapes. First prize: not being eaten! bishzilla ROARR!! 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

3 RR?[edit]

What are the times in excess of what is allowed that you think I have reverted the TSSI article?

Please note, btw, how a certain person has harassment me for implementing WP:SHUN. Watchdog07 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article history. Your last four edits are reverts. Note the timestamps—it's just less than 24 hours between the first and the fourth—and please check out the concept of a "partial revert" in the policy. Also note that the 3RR isn't an entitlement: in fact, if people perform four reverts in just over 24 hours, they're quite likely to be blocked for "gaming the policy." The behavior of your opponent doesn't make any difference, not for the 3RR. My warnings of you and him aren't meant as pokes or acts of aggression, but purely to help both of you avoid edit warring blocks. Bishonen | talk 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

That article history is quite shocking. Both editors are staking on thin ice. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They're newbies, I guess they haven't had their wikipedia epiphany yet. Patience is indicated. Well, either that or sending in User:Bishzilla, you know. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Mikkalai RFC[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Mikkalai, thought you might like to know considering your previous interaction with him on his talk page. --Iamunknown 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have a problem with Mikkalai. But I note that that RFC should have stayed in the creator's userspace until it was ready for mainspace, which it doesn't look to be. Nobody's tried to resolve the conflict, for instance, and menwhile the 48 hours are ticking. I won't meddle for my part, I've had enough of trying to get editors to follow the RFC instructions. It's a thankless task. Also I don't exactly blame people for getting it wrong, it's a bureaucratic nightmare. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
D'you know I've just suddenly realised something - (ALoan will understand this) for years I've been thinking RFC stood for Rugby Football Club, and wondering why so many odd Wikipedians were interested in Rugby (even though I had never heard of some of these clubs - the world is a big place) and for years thinking because they were interested in Rugby I would give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming anyone who likes rugby can't be all bad etc. Now I realise they were all quite probably odd after all. Funny that isn't it? Giano 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Please understand the 3RR in relationship to violations of WP:BLP[edit]

Dear Bishonen,

Please look at WP:BLP. Content that violates this policy may be reverted at any time, and is not subject to the 3 revert rule. How many reversions have I made within the last 24 hours that fail explictly to note that I am reverting because of a WP:BLP violation? It is only these that count.

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was rather expecting that argument.[94] It's breathtakingly specious. No, you don't fail to note that you're reverting BLP violations, indeed; it's just that the things you revert signally fail to be BLP violations. They count all right. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
Dear Bishonen,
Unfortunately, you have made charges here--that my argument is "breathtakingly specious" and that the things I have reverted "signally fail" to be WP:BLP violations--without providing any argument or evidence in support of them. Why then should I accept your charges?
I will be quite happy to discuss this matter with you on rational grounds (but not by trading unsubstantiated charges back and forth; that is not civil behavior). If you can convince me that employment of the N-word equivalent N___ O___ M___, in the manner in which Watchdog07 employs it, is not a WP:BLP violation, I will be willing to refrain from reverting it on that ground.
What are your arguments and/or evidence that this is not a WP:BLP violation, my friend?
justice-thunders-condemnation 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You're asking me to prove a rather random negative. Your contention that everything you don't like is a BLP vio is too absurd to address. It's like arguing with the Red Queen or something. I have already referred you to the policy itself—WP:BLP—and to the WP:LAWYER page. Please review them. Meanwhile, as long as you're willing to refrain from violating 3RR, I'm willing to refrain from blocking you. That's my best offer. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

All this sound and fury is about Marxism? Where did I leave my ice pick... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bishonen, please see an entry on my talk page in which I request withdrawal of an incorrect allegation that could harm my reputation. Thank you very much. andrew-the-k 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Arghh. Very well. I request in my turn that you stop calling me dear or dearest Bishonen, or your friend, as that is just as incorrect, and could harm my reputation. Bishonen | talk 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Any of the following are most appropriate: Your Highness, Your Excellency, Oh Great One, Your Majesty, Oh Most Revered One, Oh Most All Wise One, and last but not least, Madam Bishzilla. /me hides behind Alison. Respectfully submitted: Lsi john 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (ps I'm still looking into something for BZ's roarr.)
I quite fancy the simple dignity of My Tallest, myself. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC).


Hidden insults[edit]

Apparently we and our work can be insulted, and the insults can simply be magiced away! [95] but not when the wicked Wizard sees them first! Giano 16:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we have to put up with this behaviour from Lucifer Morgan Giano 16:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel the same way as regards your behaviour also Giano. LuciferMorgan 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then stay away Lucifer, stay away do I come seeking you out, commenting on your pages? No I do not. If you had bothered to read the comments I have made on Buckingham Palace over the last year/18 months you could have saved yourself so much trouble, and I certainly did not not write Restoration literature Giano 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So, uh, why does "always being at FARC" make someone worth hearing from? I would think that would make you crabbed, nasty, petty, and hateful, not respectable. Utgard Loki 17:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hidden insults? How about bare faced ones? I am having a bad day. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone post some massively supportive and encouraging thoughts for ALoan, please? I'm fresh out, cannot think of a thing which doesn't sound inane. Sorry... I haven't been doing so well myself. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
School report time! Clears throat. ALoan is highly pudent and he has a vidious effect on the encyclopedia. Always hevelled in appearance, his sensical contributions are sufferable to the point of being bearable. If this conduct continues I will recommend that he is impelled forthwith. The Land 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"sufferable to the point of being bearable"? :) Well, I grinned for a change today. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

For what it's worth (and probably not much), I apologize wholeheartedly for my comments in our prior dispute. While I disagreed (and still to a point, disagree) with your viewpoint regarding that issue, I regret the manner and the tone in which I said them. When I said "No biggie" with Giano, I was saying if he didn't consider it anything to worry about, neither did I. Since you still have ill feelings about what I said, it is a biggie and I apologize, wholeheartedly and completely. (I tried to approach Bishzilla with a cookie to try to apologize a few weeks back, but the mighty Zilla wasn't hungry.. which in retrospect is a good thing, because I hear being digested is a horrible way to go (Grins)). Have a great day. SirFozzie 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What can I tell you, I have less and less power over the monster. She's too busy eating editors to care much for cookies, I think. Bishonen | talk 23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Society for the Reformation of Manners[edit]

I decided to make some progress with my old redlinks today, and Yomangani has chipped in too. Some real expert input would be most gratefully received. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:GordonWatts[edit]

You may wish to reconsider your unprotection of Gordon Watt's talk page. Gordon seems to have taken this to me be a sign that he can pick up the stick again and keep going with 900 more words of why everyone is wrong but him. --Calton | Talk 22:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm watching it, and was just considering my options. Your information is well-intentioned, I daresay, but it's not necessary that you post on this page. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).
but it's not necessary that you post on this page Of course it's necessary, since I'm not psychic enough to know whether or not you're watching anyone's page. Actually, I consider it common courtesy, since my first impulse was to post a notification to WP:AN/I, Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, User talk:Sean William, or User talk:JzG, but I figured you should be notified first for your response. But thank you for reprotecting. --Calton | Talk 22:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as concerned as that comes to about Gordon Watts, but as I said I appreciate your intentions there. Calton, my point is that after the blinding discourtesy you last doled out to me—a user who'd made a point of being nice and helpful to you— I'd just rather dispense with your presence on my page. Let common courtesy fend for itself, why don't you. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC).


Show Me Love[edit]

I'm top poster! I'm top poster! (And I'm watching the film whose title is translated into English as "Show Me Love." That's not its title in Swedish.) Geogre 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

O noes, I've been doing it wrong! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, the template is greater than the sum of the parts. It is thus with tea, where reading the instructions takes longer than the brewing, steeping, and drinking, and it is so with William Wall (theologian) who has a growth on him now -- a sort of counter-article running down the side of the screen. Geogre 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody clicked and saw how William Wall's template runs on twice as long as his article and that his template is, essentially, its own little article about how to be a Baptist? Geogre 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed.[96] Bishonen | talk 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. What was interesting to me was what that template had in it. It was a checklist of crucial doctrines for Baptists. That seemed to be a sort of polemic, or a guide. It's odd information for a template. Then, of course, it was also double the vertical length of the article, but we're all used to that by now. Geogre 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nooo![edit]

It's too empty in here!
*does a little dance*
There. That was nice and encyclopedic, right?
(What??? Bishzilla would find it amusing! Well, okay, so no she wouldn't. But then she'd stomp on me, and she'd find that amusing!) Bladestorm 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

/Bishzilla smile tolerantly at little Bladestorm. Teeth gleam in sunset rays. Little user petrified. Never seen scarier smile. bishzilla ROARR!! 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

WP:STALK ???[edit]

  • DIFF - This is most highly inappropriate behaviour by Lsi john (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). I made one mistake with regards to one citation amongst the hundreds I have added to articles. This amounts to WP:STALK, as well as WP:NPA. I have come to you for help, as opposed to WP:ANI, per your prior suggestion to all of us. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you for your response. However your comments served only to point the user in a direction for more appropriate actions, which is good, but did not serve to warn the user about his inapproprate behaviour, which is difficult to deal with at times, to say the least. Smee 00:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for taking it here. I'm no fan of invoking WP:STALK, except in cases where somebody follows another editor around in order to make nuisance edits to everything they do. That's hardly the case here. But I agree that the talkpage of Pathwork was an irrelevant place for Lsi John to bring up the PSI thing (in extenuation, the matter seems to have got to him in a big way). As you've already seen I've written to him there, and, in fact, to you too. No, I don't agree that it's in my brief to talk to him as if to a child, I think my note was, by implication, quite sufficiently reproachful. I'm not in the business of smacking editors. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
Okay, your points are valid, sounds good. Thank you for dealing wth this all in such a polite manner. And glad to know I did the right thing by coming to you first. Yours, Smee 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
  • DIFF - He keeps bringing up an honest mistake that I made with (1) citation that I apologized for, and I have added hundreds of helpful reputable sourced citations to this project in a good faith effort to expand and increase the quality of other articles on the project. His continued harassment of me with this issue is inappropriate and rude. Can you do something about this? I am reaching out to you instead of reporting this, as you have asked us all to do. Thank you again so much for your time, and polite language and patience in this matter. Yours, Smee 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
    • DIFF 2, This is getting silly and ridiculous. Again, I have added lots and lots of information from reputable cited sources to the project, and helped to expand quality articles. This behaviour by this user is inappropriate. Thanks for your time. Smee 12:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Smee, in the Pathwork article, I felt the details were important as they were directly related to a very similar situation in the past. You had asked that the article not be deleted and ultimately promised to bring it back with sufficient reliable sourcing. You were making the same claims for Pathworks that you had for PSI World.
In the LGAT template discussion I did not bring up any specifics. You stated that I had failed to provide 'reliable sourcing' for my views in a discussion (which doesn't require reliable sources). You brought up 'citable sources' in an inappropriate context and I merely suggested that someone else might want to handle that discussion with me. You then chose to include specifics. I did not feel that specifics were important. However, once you brought them up, and misrepresented the situation, it was important to correct it, for the record. Running to Bishonen every time and crying stalking, is a bit silly, IMO.
You inappropriately roast companies with your sourced 'allegations', 'speculation', and 'innuendo', and you base entire articles around these 'dismissed' lawsuits and 'suspicions'. You publish POV in the name of 'reputable sourcing', yet you don't make any effort to provide the other POV and thus to obtain NPOV articles.
I find it perplexing that you have no problem applying tar and feathers to companies, yet you cry harassment when anything is mentioned at all which remotely referrs to the facts of your prior inappropriate misconduct.
This is clearly a sensitive issue for you and I will make every attempt to avoid the subject whenever possible and not bring it up unless it is appropriate to do so. Lsi john 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the LGAT template from my watchlist and am no longer editing or contributing to it. I have also removed almost every other LGAT article from my watch list. It is not a productive use of my time to attempt to edit articles when Smee continues to complain and then distract the discussion and make it about Smee and how Smee is being mistreated.
In the mediation for Landmark Education here, Smee's first 9 posts were all off-topic and about NPA and Smee refused diff to post within a designated user comment-area (as other editors were doing). Smee's 10th post clearly stated that Smee was no longer involved in the article. And, Smee has now 'joined' the mediation but has yet to provide one single comment which addresses the article or the items being debated.
Someone commented on the 3O discussion page that perhaps Smee needs to take a 2-3 month break from 3O diff. I suggest that Smee might consider taking that suggestion on a broader scale. When every single comment (by one editor) in a mediation is related to NPA or is talking about other editors' actions, it suggests to me that the editor may be burned out and need a break. Lsi john 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
John? You realize I get the New Messages banner every time you post HINT HINT? Bishonen | talk 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

m Lsi john 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • DIFF 3. My apologies for posting to you again, Bishonen (talk · contribs), but this last comment by User:Lsi john, editing within another user's comments, and then ending the discussion, is more along the same theme of inappropriate talk page behaviour. Thank you again for your time. Smee 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, unless there's something behind it that I'm not aware of, I agree that those {{fact}} templates in your text were pretty unconstructive. But note that he says he's taking it off his watchlist, so... Try to relax, look away, go Zen, Smee. It's something that's worth doing on Wikipedia for your own benefit, rather than for the other person. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Sounds like very good advice. Thank you. Smee 19:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Question

Bishonen, as Smee has been coming to you repeatedly, I'd like to ask for clarification on the 3RR rule. You warned us both about 3RR and Smee continues to push it. In the Large Group Awareness Training article Smee was edit warring with Justanother, Jossi and myself. There were 6 clear reverts and I reported the incident on AN3RR. Before the case could be decided, Smee went to 7RR. Thats specifically 4RR against me and at least 3RR with other editors.

The other admin seems to be under the impression that this is the same article that Smee keeps edit warring in and has protected the article. When I questioned him, he and Smee seemed to exchange pleasantries.

I'm not asking you to overrule anyone, but could you explain whats going on and why Smee gets 7RR and I have to stop editing because I'm 2RR? Lsi john 05:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The other day Smee was 3RR/2RR in two articles, and after being found no-vio, he went to 4RR/3RR within an hour and again the ruling was no-vio (due to self-revert).
Now its 7RR and still no violation? This is certainly peculiar at best.
If I'm going to be editing with someone who gets 7RR, I'd like permission to at least go to 5RR myself. Thanks.Lsi john 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The user's interpretations of 3RR, as well as my own actions, are incorrect, and this was shown by comments from other editors/Admins. Smee 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Sumple[edit]

Sumple had some personal attacks against me on his userpage. How dickish can he get?[[97]] [[98]][[99]] most damningly [[100]] [[101]] [[102]] [[103]]

Funny thing is these insane edits just proved by point that there is certain alliance between Jiang, blueshirt, Ideogram, LionheartX, and Sumple. An anonymous IP made some accusations on Sumple’s userpage and talkpage, which are obvious personal attacks but nevertheless with some merits. [[104]] [[105]] [[106]] (I know these edits are funny but why would anyone bother to accuse him if he didn’t show a pro-China, pro-communism bias? Can you talk to him into removing this redirect? User:Sumple#Quote_of_the_moment which redirected "crazy people" to my userpage. Btw, good to know that you're still around, I'm not coming back though.--Certified.Gangsta 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope you change your mind, CG. Only the piped link was still on the userpage, that I could see. I've asked him to remove it. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

If you want, I'll unprotect and reprotect, so it's my action he has to complain about. SWATJester Denny Crane. 11:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the requsite number of braincells, Swat..? ;-) But, no, thanks, I don't at this time feel like pandering to the notion that there was something objectionable about my action. Thanks anyway. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

That sockpuppet guy[edit]

User:Jsimlo, who was clearly using the sockpuppet User:Give it back a while ago, is now merrily having a conversation with the brand new anon IP account User:201.36.233.11 to try to establish "consensus" on Talk:Nonogram. Wheeee.... DreamGuy 06:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you have enough reason for suspicion to put in a CheckUser request for all three. I think you should. You already know the contexts, and it seems unnecessary doubling of effort for me to get my head round it first. Best, Bishonen | talk 10:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Shortage of images[edit]

You cleaned too much. I will fix for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A cute little snail. He is sad because the article Snails in folklore needs help. No one cares. Sad.
/Bishzilla care. Affectionately put garlic butter on little snail. Heart of gold! bishzilla ROARR!! 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Oh, that reminds me - my daughther reports she had wonderful meal in Paris, didn't eat a decent meal in all of Italy, and had her first good meal since Paris in Prague. Which rather goes against conventional wisdom, but its always luck of the draw when you're traveling, isn't it? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
A snail got mugged by a couple of turtles. "What happened," the policeman asked. "I don't know," the snail replied, "it all happened so fast!" Geogre 13:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I know how he feels.... I'm getting old and creaky myself. *grin* KillerChihuahua?!? 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

More available upon request. ;) Lsi john 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for your message[edit]

You have spared me the agony of dealing further with her blatantly false and malicious accusations of disruption, bad faith, and edit warring.Ferrylodge 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome, I'm glad to have been spreading sunshine. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
Now that I am unblocked and have taken some additional time beyond that 24-hour block period to consider this matter, I would like to follow a dispute resolution process. Wikipedia guidelines say: "When you are unblocked, you may then follow the dispute resolution process if you believe that you were treated unfairly."
One dispute resolution option is a "third opinion", but that does not seem appropriate here, because "The third-opinion process requires good faith on both sides of the dispute." My good faith in this matter has been reapetedly disputed, so I assume that a "third opinion" would not be appropriate here. Indeed, I was blocked by you immediately after saying, "I am glad to be done posting on this page," so it is clear that you dispute my good faith, and this is also evident from your remarks such as "leave KC the hell alone." Thus, a "third opinion" would not work here.
Another option, before I resort to arbitration, is mediation. However, mediation "cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part." Therefore, I will assume you are not willing to take part, unless you provide some indication to the contrary.Ferrylodge 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That's right, I'm not willing to take part in mediation with you. You don't want advice from me, I'm sure, but you can have it anyway: a request for arbitration isn't going to be accepted at this point. See how it says ""last resort"? Instead, the normal and accepted next step for you would be to file a request for comment, mentioned here. You can file an RFC about misuse of administrative tools (=my block button). Mind you, I think you'd be disappointed with the result, but don't take my word for it, ask someone else. Bishonen | talk 18:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
Where should I place the request for comment?Ferrylodge 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The guidelines say "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page...." I am only one user. Therefore an RfC does not seem to be possible. Any advice on that?Ferrylodge 18:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Before filing an RFC, you may like to test the waters at little further at WP:ANI. The reaction that you get there may give you some indication of the way things will go at WP:RFC or WP:RFARB. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I may try WP:ANI. However, I would still like to know whether I must pursue an RfC in order to subsequently pursue an RFARB. An RfC seems to require more than one complaining party, whereas there is only one complaining party here.Ferrylodge 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you please advise me on that, Bishonen?Ferrylodge 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Look... the double role you're asking me to play here is a little weird. You could do with an experienced user to help you with the process, but it shouldn't be me. I was going to suggest the WP:AMA page, but I see it's inactive. OK, I suggest that you either ask Sandstein, since you've met him, or add the {{helpme}} template to your talkpage, and somebody will show up to advise you. And no, you don't need two people complaining, you just need a second person to endorse your complaint. You know, to agree that it has merit, and also to contact me and try to resolve the issue. (Perhaps you, ALoan?) Also, there's no formal requirement to do an RFC before an RFAR, you can go right ahead and request arbitration, if you like. It's certainly a simpler process than RFC. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Endorse? Me? I was trying to suggest very gently that an RFC or RFARB would be wasting everyone's time (as, I believe, posting to ANI would demonstrate in short order). Go away and sin no more, y'know? Ho hum. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Bishonen. Earlier today, you stated: "You don't want advice from me." Then when I ask your advice you say that it's "weird." I will ask for no more advice from you.
ALoan, your invitation to visit ANI so that I can be told to "go away" is an invitation that I will decline.Ferrylodge 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to read this three times, but I think Ferrylodge is asking for help with dispute resolution regarding the 'other' party, not with Bishonen. I think he was asking Bishonen to 'take part' in overseeing the mediation, not participating. Its muddy, but after I read it from that perspective, it seems that might be the case anyway. Then again, I've been wrong before. Lsi john 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And you're wrong now. I am the other party. And also being asked to help. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
Then I go back to my initial reaction. I agree with you, it is just weird (and a bit extreme). At least it made some sense, if he was asking you to help mediate. It would be interesting to watch him edit in the LGAT or Scientology articles (or not). Lsi john 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is weird at Wikipedia to try and establish some minimal level of rapport, and to try and show some minimal level of respect. My apologies.Ferrylodge 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I will pursue this matter as far as it can be pursued. After that pursuit has failed (and I have little doubt that ALoan is correct in saying that it will fail), then I may leave Wikipedia and I may not. But let me be clear about one thing: I do not take being called a liar lightly, and that is exactly what you have done, Bishonen. I was blocked by you immediately after saying, "I am glad to be done posting on this page," and you not only blocked me but warned me to "leave KC the hell alone." I am an honest man, and am not a liar.

For you to also accuse me of "harassment" at a Wikipedia page, and to insist that I not be able to leave the barest denial at that same Wikipedia page, is also contemptible. I do not know whether your "harassment" accusation will enter into my soon-to-be ill-fated arbitration request, but your "harassment" accusation was as ill-founded as your accusation of dishonesty. The facts are clear: Killerchihuahua explicitly said that the question of whether RCOG is a "pro-choice group" is a separate issue from whether RCOG has a "pro-choice position" on a particular issue. Subsequently, I made one single edit saying RCOG had a pro-choice position on a particular issue. Before I knew it, she was using that one single edit to accuse me of edit-warring and disruption and bad faith. And then you pounce.

Go ahead and delete this comment if you wish, but make no mistake. You have made a serious and extremely insulting accusation, and I intend to pursue this until the end, regardless of the outcome.Ferrylodge 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john suggests (at my talk page) that I explain to you precisely what I want, in hopes of avoiding unnecesary hoops. I have never planned to try to get your admin powers revoked, and have never demanded an apology from you. What I am looking for is an acknowledgment (e.g. from you or from an arbitration committee) that I was not harassing KC, and that I was not lying when I said at KC's talk page that I was "done posting on this page," and that I am an honest Wikipedian. I will, of course, assume that you decline to acknowledge any of those things, unless you indicate otherwise.Ferrylodge 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge,
  1. I did NOT suggest you ask (yet). I suggested you read, and wait and cool off.
  2. You probably should NOT assume things, and certainly not tell someone you assume they will disagree with you or that you assume they will or will not do something. Its bad form and tends to put people on edge.
Lsi john 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, you said: "Cool off a bit. really, take a breath and relax. If you went into a court hearing the way you went to Bishonen's talk page, the judge would throw you out. Go read what you've written to Bishonen. Don't write anything else right now, just go read it. Put yourself in her place. Do you really ask her for anything? Perhaps I missed it. But to me, it looked like you went right for the throat and never even told her what you wanted to end up with." Maybe I did not follow or describe your suggestions as precisely as possible. I am not perfect, and I do appreciate your help here.
By the way, I never go into court. I just get the patents for the clients, and what they do with them is their business. Very often, I tell the clients that I will do thus-and-such unless I hear from them to the contrary. It's just a habit. It enables me to move along without waiting an eternity. I'm glad that you didn't have any substantive objection to anything but the last sentence of my previous comment.Ferrylodge 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi John, thank you for attempting to resolve this. I sincerely appreciate your kind intentions. If you plan to continue your dialogue with Ferrylodge, please do it somewhere other than on this page, as it seems to have reached the point of diminishing returns here. Ferrylodge, thank you for clarifying your wishes. I do in fact decline to make the acknowledgements you suggest. Please pursue your assumptions and intentions somewhere else, I'd rather not have any further repetitions of them on this page. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the answer.Ferrylodge 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I have been instructed to let you know about this incident report at ANI. I hope you will let KC know about it if you think she should.Ferrylodge 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A nervous hello......[edit]

hi bish - as a user in good standing who has had some contact with me, i wonder if you'd mind having a look at the discussion on the talk page of the no personal attacks page - i'm feeling pretty bullied, and would value your advice (there, here, on my talk page, or anywhere!)

.....equally - the whole thing is a bit unhappy, so if you prefer to keep your wiki sky cloud free for the sake of sanity / serenity i'll understand if you don't want to engage.....

best wishes to you anyway, and take care! - Purples 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it might have all calmed down a little now, maybe i was overly sensitive to come to you - anyways, have a wonderful day.... Purples 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Purples, it's not the serenity (what? where?), it's that I should have already been asleep for some hours, I'm in a different timezone. Can't look at anything now. Tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 05:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC).


OK, I'm awake.., but I've been putting off reading all that stuff, sorry. It's the kind of subject I don't willingly get involved in—I just feel I have enough quarrels on my plate without that. But since you come to my page, I'll try to give you an answer, and sorry about the belatedness. I have to disagree with your removal of that section. That's because I think removing those famous links is current policy. I don't mean it's necessarily the consensus on the NPA talkpage that the section should be on the NPA page (I can't face reading through that talkpage), but that it's policy. Policy isn't words on a policy page, it's current practice, in particular admin practice. Those words on a page come after policy has already been established. And, yes, it is my impression, per ANI, that removing those links is what we currently do. While quarrelling about it, admittedly, and while linking a lot to that famous arbcom decision, which isn't really an appropriate authority (arbcom doesn't determine policy). But nevertheless that it's on the whole what we do. I'm sorry you're feeling bullied.

Reading... oh. I do see why you're feeling disparaged. Though I know exactly where SlimVirgin is coming from,, too. Darn. Seriously... I'm very sorry I've been so slow. I'm going to post a couple of sentences now. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks so much for your kind words... i think it really helped to avoid my editing situation derailing (or derailing further!) - you're very kind to help out, and it's appreciated - have a great day... Purples 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's simply my opinion. Bishonen | talk 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Speedy delete, please[edit]

re: David Dotter Just back from a family gathering and found this page attached to an article on my watchlist. I believe such blatant self promotion would qualify for a speedy delete. Thanks for your help. Best....... WBardwin 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What prompt action! Thank you. WBardwin 01:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And when are you going to get your own delete button, W? Bishonen | talk 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Vendetta?[edit]

Thanks very much for the heads-up; that'll teach me to offer my expertise, such as it is! Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes, but how many medals (...?) have you got? [107] Bishonen | talk 14:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC).
..and you must remember Bishonen those "arguments wouldn't stand a chance in a university" Giano 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I used to think the guy was just the subject of discussion under a different name, but I now believe that this account, the Louder, is actually performance art. It is a sort of attempt at the eiron as fool, and it is up to everyone else to laugh at this Andy Kaufman-styled bit of humor. Utgard Loki 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Utgard, (I do love a man with a strong name) your wit is so intellectual sometimes I feel we are meant for each other. As I sit here having my coronet and shoes polished it fatigues me reading the Encyclopedia. I do so wonder though what on earth is happening. Naturally, as one would expect, I am besieged with people (mostly that Jimbo person) wanting me to record my memories, and of course I am still working on my own biography but what sort of people will read them? I will certainly not allowed them to be serialised by a Sunday Newspaper (I knew John Profumo and saw his winkle in his eye as he espied me in the Royal Enclosure, as as for the fun we had at Cliveden) - such happy and fulfilling days. My problem is if one is to write about one's nearest and most very dearest one does not want the riveting details read by the lower classes (all this anyone can edit business is very worying indeed) - does Wikipedia have some screening process to stop this affront. Of course I need a confidential copy-edit. There are so few editors here, from what I like to think of as "the right sort of people" (I would ask that nice little Mrs. Bishonen, (but between ourselves I suspect she is not 100% British) perhaps I'll ask that sweet General Bonkers (he has such an elegant turn of phrase [108]) or even Mr. Counter-Revulsion, although (he intimates he is a lawyer - very nasty almost trade!) or perhaps poor Sir William although he has enough troubles of his own having been so rudely redirected by that nasty Glaswegian doctor - I don't trust Doctors myself always wanting me to take my clothes off, I expect if he saw me that would be the first thing he would want - I've met his type before! So who does one ask - good editors are so few on the ground that clever Mr. Mackensen is so busy running the place, someone suggested an American personage called Brad but what sort of a name is "Brad" <shudder> for a gentleman? and all those "medals", which he likes to expose upfront, so very vulgar! Ms. Martin (she says she is inactive, poor old thing, some mornings I know how she feels) and Mr. Sidebottom ("Tone" as he like me to call him in moments of intimacy) again an obvious choice but always so busy - I suppose I have no choice - it has to be that frightfully grand Sicilian person but at my age my knees find curtsying such a problem - Oh do someone help me out. Lord Wetman keeps himself very above this kind of thing, I wonder what happened to that nice very English Member of the Peerage always such a true gentleman, if he only knew of my distress - Oh the British if only one could rely on them to come to the rescue - a damsel could be saved. Catherine de Bourgh (Lady) 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
<bows deeply>I am much obliged, my lady; but unfortunately I am peerless. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, what a bitch! El_C 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the cakes would end up being, ah, rather well done (in King Alfred style). -- ALoan (Talk) 21:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure they had cake at meetings of the Society of Original Gentlemen, after all, the Association of Constables used to meet down the pub. I'm slightly worried about John Profumo though. I suppose the saline environment is good for it, but you wouldn't have thought he could get on in politics with a winkle in his eye. Yomanganitalk 22:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
What's more, one wonders about the sort of argument that would stand at a university! I read recently of a large bequest grandfather made being used to endow a chair for some woman writing about "Lesbian self-discovery in the body of Jane Austen." Jane Austen's body surely never suffered such an affront before, and I can think of nothing she did to ever earn it. If that is the sort of thing that he wishes, then we shall have no more to do with it! -- Viscount Thomas Buckingham, Mrs.
  • Excuse me ladies! I cannot believe Doc Glasgow would wish to undress Lady Catherine, and when addressing me there is no need to curtsey, a small genuflection is sufficient. Regarding Ms Austen: While, I believe though she did rather portray Lady Catherine as a nasty old trout - I doubt she knew what a lesbian was. Giano 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Vendetta - that's when you go to gaol for bankrupting your legal circles? :p

The Country Wife[edit]

Is at WP:FAR if you are interested (guess what the reasoning is). I haven't looked at the history but if somebody watching this page didn't write it then I'll be a monkey's uncle. (I'm not a monkey's uncle am I? Go on, say I'm not) Yomanganitalk 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
Oooh, let me guess about the reasoning! Let me guess! It's not "vendetta," is it? Is it, "We are in high school and do not want to have to understand things?" Is it, "We have no idea what a good article is, but we think it has something to do with mods of video games that come as DVD extras on the soundtrack of videogames released on special purple aluminum only in Japan?" No? If I go there, ever, I will ask what I have been daring myself to ask: "Since you have appointed yourselves experts on what is a featured article, please list the best article on Wikipedia by your standards." See, because I'd have to answer with The Country Wife, myself. Geogre 23:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes? It's about footnotes? Ok, so we need tighter controls on the model airplane glue, I know, but one edit to the article and then FAR? That's just weird. Utgard Loki 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The review page[edit]

The bot will close it now that it's in the archive, so don't worry about formatting or anything. It's been speedy kept. Marskell 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given Jay a 24 hour block. Marskell 14:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Even would be better would be if he contributed to the encyclopedia, but that seems to be too much to ask for. Utgard Loki 14:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The battle of the subtlety[edit]

Moving down so belated reply has a chance of being noticed.

People are revert-warring me because I removed material I had myself written (or moved it to entremet) and now simply refuse to discuss any of the fact issues with me. Everyone but me seems to be firmly stuck in "it's useful, it's from a source; we have to keep it". It's already slightly Kafka-ish to me. Do you think you could weigh in on this one?

Peter Isotalo 06:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Insistence as a substitute for argument and reasoning. Been there. Well, I agree it's a weird situation. I'll see, but I'm rather deterred by knowing that input from me is unlikely to be taken in good faith here... since some of the editors involved already resent me. Killer...? Bishonen | talk 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

Tsk![edit]

So I bring up the subject on the talk page at Arbuthnot and you opt instead to edit war after asking me not to? That's poor form. -- JHunterJ 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

She didn't I did. Are you being deliberatly contraversial, or do you just not follow anything on Wikipedia? Giano 18:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am, of course, referring to this edit. The answer to your second question is no, to both. -- JHunterJ 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not an edit war. She went back to the status quo. Based on your own opinion alone, you demanded a change. That makes you the one who is "edit warring." Furthermore, you offered no rationale for the change before making it and still haven't -- even after making incendiary charges. Wanting and needing are very different things. Geogre 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot war by myself, and I made no edits to the page after the first Talk page message (which was on my Talk page). I also haven't "demanded" any changes. I'm editing in good faith; I'd appreciate a little assumption of it. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 20:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have (belatedly, sorry) replied at Talk:Arbuthnot. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
So, the discussion there seems to have petered out. Can the protection (which came prematurely anyway, I think) be lifted now? -- JHunterJ 11:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated ping. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lothlórien[edit]

"Are these magic cloaks?"

"I do not know what you mean by that. They are fair garments, and the web is good, for it was made in this land. They are elvish robes certainly, if that is what you mean. Leaf and branch, water and stone: they have the hue and beauty of all these things under the twilight of Lorien that we love; for we put the thought of all that we love into all that we make. And you will find them a great aid in keeping out of the sight of unfriendly eyes, whether you walk among the stones or the trees."

qp10qp 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The web is not that good. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
It's the woof of the weave that gets you. Geogre 17:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
'"This is indeed a queer river," Frito said, as the water lapped at his thighs.' (From one of the funniest books I've ever read.) Utgard Loki 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Middle Earthlings Are Easy[edit]

1694 in literature and 1695 in literature now look much juicier and fuller fleshed and inviting. Mary 2 died in Dec. 94, so all anyone could write about for six months of 95 was the funeral (except Blackmore, who published Arthur). Utgard Loki 17:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wise.[edit]

That advice that you gave to Pigsinthewind about incivility (on AN/I) is sensible. We may be inclined to fight every instance of being wronged, but sometimes stepping back is a sensible thing to do. It just depends on the situation.Feddhicks 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Bishonen | talk 00:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Crusade[edit]

Smee is back warring and pushing POV in Erhard Seminars and Large Group Awareness Training. I'm taking a wiki-break. His crusade is too much for me right now. Peace. Lsi john 05:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have a moment, you may wish to read through some of the talk page discussion. I am going to take a new tack, or at least try my best to, and try to simply ignore impolite language on talk pages that is not related directly to discussing article content. Smee 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
    • I did. Smee, I'm sorry, but I tend to agree with Lsi John that your focus on "politeness" is becoming quite unconstructive, and tends to be itself impolite. It seems to be more and more your main subject, and even to be preventing you from discussing content, which is what talkpages are for. And, I know this may be me, but frequently I don't even understand why you call something impolite, or call it polite—when somebody writes a comment to you, I just can't predict whether you're going to respond by thanking them for their politeness, or by complaining of the opposite. If people you're in conflict with experience the same uncertainty as me, it obviously militates against communication between you. Perhaps you might like to consider whether your interpretation of the civility/incivility of other people's words is rather idiosyncratic? At any rate, please focus on content on talkpages. People aren't usually out to insult you, as far as I can see. And a comment like this isn't a "new tack" in this respect—saying that you'll ignore something—and saying only that—is the opposite of really ignoring it. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
      • Bishonen, I am sorry that you feel that way. However, It is reassuring to know that you think certain individuals are not out to insult me. And your advice about how to do the actual ignoring is also useful, and I will try to apply this in certain situations if things get heated. Thanks for your time, and your candor. Yours, Smee 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
        • Again, thanks for the feedback, if you have any other comments on this, just message me on my talk please. Yours, Smee 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Request for action regarding Ferrylodge account[edit]

Dear Bishonen:

I am writing because I have two requests regarding your recent interaction with Ferrylodge’s account[109].

First Request: I have read at the text preceding your block, and I do not see how Ferrylodge[110] had done anything even approaching “harassment.” The harassment warning of 02:16, 28 May 2007 comes like a bolt out of the blue. I request that you supplement Ferrylodge’s block log to acknowledge that the harassment warning of 02:16, 28 May 2007 was not warranted by the text. I ask that you consider this request regardless of what you think of my second request.

Second Request: As it stands, your entry in Ferrylodge’s block log [111]is misleading. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block"[112]. Please supplement Ferrylodge’s block log in order to acknowledge that the block was deemed appropriate (by Sandstein)[113] for the purpose of disengagement, and not because Ferrylodge's final message, before the block, amounted to harassment.

Regards, LCP 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


LCP, you might consider reading this sequence and reconsidering your request. I took an interest in this situation after Ferrylodge tried to shift the focus of his block in a conversation with me, which started here on Bishonen's page and continued on his talkpage here, moved to Bishonen's page here and finally ended back on Ferrylodge's page here.

00:23 May 28, Rude post by Ferrylodge on KC's page, declaring that KC does not have an ounce of objectivity. here
01:10 May 28, Rude post by Ferrylodge on KC's page, classifying Killerchihuahua's editing as conspicious (def: marked by a noticable violation of good taste). here
01:46 May 28, Rude post saying dealing with Killerchihuahua's editing is a waste of time and categorizing Killerchihuahua's editing as disruptive. here
Note: all of the prior conversations belonged in the article talkpage, not on KC's talkpage.
02:16 May 28, Bishonen warns Ferrylodge (on Killerchihuahua's talkpage) not to post there again, and clearly indicates a block will follow if the warning is ignored. here
02:21 May 28, Bishonen also warns Ferrylodge on his talkpage: here
02:24 May 28, Ferrylodge responds to Bishonen with impolite sarcasm on Bishonen's page. here
02:25 May 28, Ferrylodge makes same reply on his talkpage. here
02:32 May 28, Ferrylodge ignores Bishonen's warning, and posts on KillerChihuahua's page: here
02:36 May 28, Ferrylodge 'updates' his edit. here
03:08 May 28, KillerChihuahua deletes Ferrylodge's post. here
04:08, May 28, Ferrylodge again posts on Killerchihuahua's page. here
04:13, May 28, Bishonen blocks Ferrylodge after he posted two three times, following the warning to stop. It appears the block-comment is correct. blocklog
04:23, May 28, Ferrylodge deletes Bishonen's warning from his talkpage: here

To my knowledge, Bishonen has never addressed the specific content of any of Ferrylodge's posts. The block was done, after a warning had been ignored twice three times. The block text states the reason Repeated harassment posting on User talk:KillerChihuahua after warning, and does not cite the specifics of Ferrylodge's final post. It was the fact that he posted, not what he posted, that resulted in the violation. While Sandstein does address the specifics of the final post, it was Ferrylodge who introduced that content as related to the block. Bishonen did not. There is no reason to include Sandstein's reply to Ferrylodge's introduction of his interpretation of the block.

The fact is, he ignored Bishonen's direct warning twice thrice, and continued posting to KC's page. The contents of his posts are totally irrelevant, as he was very clearly told to stop. Lsi john 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John, useful list! I may well copy it for the RFC that I assume LCP's post is in preparation for. (See WP:RFC: "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours.") You forgot one edit by Ferrylodge to KC's page, though; the one at 2:36, here. It's an interesting one: there, Ferrylodge links his innocent-looking previouos edit to a nasty set of attacks against KC that he has just made at my page. So it was three times, not twice, that he ignored my direct warning and posted on KC's page. Only after the third time did I block him.
Thank you LCP. John, the fact is that I was told to "stop" doing something which I had not been doing. But that does not seem to matter to you. Of all the items on your very long list, only the first three items occurred before the unjustified harassment warning and block threat. Do you really want to argue that it's "harassment" for me to say that a person lacks objectivity? Or for me to say that a person has conspicuously omitted diffs to support their position? Or for me to reply to accusations of disruption, bad faith and edit-warring by asserting that the accuser is herself being disruptive? None of those things that occurred at KC's talk page is remotely like "harassment." And not even Sandstein believed that my later denial of the harassment charge itself amounted to harassment.Ferrylodge 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, sir. You were told to stop posting, which you had been doing. Your posting was regarded as harassing, but you were not told to stop harassing, you were told to stop posting. You said you were happy to be done, but you didn't stop. You were clearly told that 'any' further post would be regarded as harassment. You ignored that, three times. The block was justified. You really need to move on and drop this issue. (I won't post further here, as the facts speak for themselves.) Lsi john 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You may regard this denial as harassment, but that does not make it so, by a long shot.Ferrylodge 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I must bow out now, due to employment.Ferrylodge 18:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear LCP. Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua on her page, and I warned him against posting there again. He replied with a sarcastic thank-you on my page, full of attacks against KC, and expressing pleasure in being spared, through my warning, "the agony" of dealing with her anymore.[114] (For all the world as if somebody had been physically forcing him to post on her page, and my warning had somehow released him.) I replied lightly.[115] There was apparently something unsatisfactory about that, because he then posted on her page, to say that there also that he was "done".[116] It seemed a bit repetitious, but I ignored it. Then he posted on KC's page again, this time linking his previous innocent-looking message to the attack on her that he had just made on my page.[117] Call me soft, but I ignored that as well. I hoped he was running down. He wasn't. A little later, he posted on KC's page again, for the third time since my warning, repeating yet again that he was done, and introducing (rather belatedly, you may say) what has since become his main theme, a protest against my use of the term "harassment."[118] Three posts—he wasn't running down. I blocked. And now you want me to put a note in the block log to say that was an inappropriate block? Seriously? That block wasn't for Ferrylodge's final message. It was for the cumulative effect of his messages on KC's page, and most especially for posting to it three times after my warning. I notice Ferrylodge is complaining richly and variously about not being allowed to rebut my charge of harassment in the place where I made it, when the truth is that I turned a blind eye to his first two posts there (as well as to the vicious business of his post on my page), and only blocked on the third. I'll deal with your ruleslawyering about Sandstein agreeing with Ferrylodge in the request for comment that I presume you're working up to. Go ask Sandstein to put a note in the block log, why don't you. And about that RFC: I'm not the person to advise either of you, but I wish Ferrylodge would consult with some experienced users about frivolous RFCs and the way they have of turning into commentary on the behavior of the nominator instead. You'd think the feedback he got on WP:ANI would be a bit of a hint. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen, you start your comment by saying: "Ferrylodge was harassing KillerChihuahua on her page...." I agree with you that that assertion is central to justifying your actions. Do you really believe that the first three items on Lsi john's long list amounted to "harassment"? Why then do you suppose KC never asked me to leave?Ferrylodge 18:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't speculate on her motives, and I'd appreciate it if you and LCP didn't post on my page anymore, unless there's an actual need. It seems to me that posting 15 full screens about the matter on ANI and being amply answered by many admins ought to be enough. If this is about racking up the requisite dispute resolution attempts in preparation for an RFC, I hereby waive all further requirement for those. That should be a relief to all three of us. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

I have initiated a conduct RfC regarding your self, Bishonen. It's here. Still needs someone to certify. I wonder if you're allowed to do that?Ferrylodge 08:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh fer crying out loud. No. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Then I'll just have to make do.Ferrylodge 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
"Still needs someone to certify. I wonder if you're allowed to do that?" !?!?!?! Phaedriel - 08:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
True to the last! Lsi john 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My dog, that's awful![edit]

Did you know that my dog is Russian? She must be, because she sure is Putin. Geogre 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but platitudes[edit]

I've had it. El_C 20:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Up to here. Too bad about the old I've-had-it/addiction-strikes spin-dry cycle. We always come slinking back, but with less enthusiasm every time. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
Hey, people can be demoted even before anyone asks them what they mean. Forget blocking without warning: we're at demoting without warning now, and then hand wringing over being unable to find an ArbCom member "who's online" at the time. Online? What the heck does that mean? Oh, I'll be accused of sniping at IRC again, but does anyone notice how this keeps coming up? Blocks, demotions, blocks, sanctions, etc., where there is always an emergency to stop (choose one) bad language, copyright violation, plagiarism, incivility, reverting, bad language, biography violations, or bad language. Why talk to someone, when you're a big admin (or "trusted former administrator")? Geogre 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I continue to make friends wherever I go. El_C 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Night Gyr, want to ask nicely where it will do the most good? Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Night_Gyr. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And it worked! (or so Raul claims, though the log hasn't refreshed yet) Better to something something than to curse the darkness or something something... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been following this as it unfolded, pretty much in real time once it picked up speed. Exhilarating! The attractive header is my own work. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the link. The day gets even better. I think I need a break. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I may have accidentally wasted my words on the FAR discussion page instead of AN/I. Oh, well. I have more words. Geogre 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sumple's IP[edit]

Thank you for helping me out about Sumple's PA. I noticed he left the project; however, an anonymous IP (clearly Sumple based on contributions) removed my comment in Talk:Culture of Taiwan [119]. This seems to be a deliberate baiting attempt (using his IP as a way to avoid scrutiny) since obviously I'm on revert parole after the arbCom case. Moreover, this[120] seems to directly targets my userpage. Can you restore my comments and maybe block the IP as sockpuppet (does it apply)?? Thank you! --Certified.Gangsta 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to revert the IP, after writing a comment on their talk, when I saw you'd done it yourself. That was reverting vandalism, so you should be all right, but it would still be better to let someone else take care of stuff like that and not have to have a whole argument about it later. Grumble... please try not to be so impatient. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
C'mon you know I've always been impatient even if I try not to. Lol just joking. Aight look, I'm sorry. I just thought that it was vandalism and that 1 week had passed since my last edit, so I should be pretty safe. I appreciate your advice though.--Certified.Gangsta 08:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you're fine then. I didn't check your contribs, my bad. Bishonen | talk 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Where's Bishzilla?[edit]

And, why isn't she commenting on your RFC? Miranda 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

hah! Lsi john 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because one of the signatories of that RfC actually took bishzilla seriously. [/stands in awe at the sound of all wikipedians simultaneously rubbing their eyes to read that again]. Yup. Bladestorm 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
She's giving massages, a much better use of her time than that amazingly puerile Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'M NOT GOING TO FALL FOR FOLLOWING ANY MORE 'MASSAGE' LINKS! Squash me into a paste once, shame on you. Squash me into a paste twice... Bladestorm 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear. "All arch criminals make mistakes, Robin, and sooner or later, Bishzilla will give us something to prosecute her with." ("Hubris?" The gods are angered?) Utgard Loki 17:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I have posted. It's more than a little gassy, my prose, but I was just "writing the body." I'm sure I'll get no points for directness. Geogre 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to assume Bishzilla's role (probably!). Please supplant grrrs with prrrs and proceed to too tuna. Kitty 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute furry pet user! /['zilla smiles rustily. Little cat is not scared, goes prrrr. ] Brave little user! bishzilla ROARR!! 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
Nooo, my short-lived hubris! Kitty 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR topic[edit]

I have to hand it to you: best topic heading of all time. — Deckiller 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, even though I followed your bit about "elitist," I wasn't going after you. I was trying to point out only that some of us don't think it's our business to go through passing judgment on everything. It's true that my judgment on a great deal of content would be something you'd find offensive, for example, and yet you and I have never been at odds and will not be, because you're not going to go around to an article I've written and complain that the sentences are too long, and I'm not going to go to an FAC review of a pop culture article and try to kill it because it's not on a topic I like. The people causing the problems on these FA and GA pages seem to me to want to be in power, in control, and the center of every single potential article. They don't do this with content, but only with footnotes and irrational (often flatly wrong) proclamations about "grammar." A person's academic elitism or street cred seem to rarely cause problems, but intolerance and attempts at being a big cheese always seem to be the kiss of death for something. Geogre 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I know. Whenever I review FACs, it's for people who I know or articles that haven't received enough feedback. I used to be part of that entire FAC/FAR team, but I went back to primarily editing becuase of all the arguments and everything else associated with it. I'm somewhat of a wordnerd, but I'm not at Tony's level yet, so I usually try to be humble in my prose opposes. Speaking of pop culture, I get a ton of flak from merges and transwikis, and I'm not even really "anti-fiction"! There's so many levels of opinions on Wikipedia, and the best we can do is find a compromise and/or work on our favorite areas. By the way, sorry if I don't sound very coherent; it's been a long day, partially because of the flak I mentioned above. — Deckiller 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's all back down to "Whom does the Grail serve?" If we're trying to serve the public through Wikipedia, that's fine. If we're trying to serve the abstraction known as Wikipedia, that's a little worrying. If we're out to serve ourselves, it's bad, bad. Folks need to get therapists, or dogs, or something, and leave off trying to be Very Important through Wikipedia. When the power goes out, Wikipedia goes away, and it would be a pity of one's self image and importance were so tenuous. Trying to be the gargoyle before the doors of the Featured Star just rubs me very much the wrong way.
Oh, and Bishonen, and anyone else who might be amused or find it useful, I've just done one of my little essays: User:Geogre/Editwar -- "So You Want to be an Edit Warrior?" It's a career guide for the edit warriors. Geogre 10:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bigfoot shot JFK! Bishonen | talk 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
There were gum wrappers in the grassy knoll. Proof positive. --Justanother 15:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Bladestorm pointed out to me that I was prejudiced against you due to your moniker, “Bishzilla,” and that this effected my judgment in helping to bring about the RfC. He was correct. I hope that you will accept my apology for that. I also seem to be guilty of lacking a correct understanding of the significance of an RfC. From what I read on the RfC page, I gathered that it was merely an objective review of facts. So, I also seem to be guilty of not investigating matters deeply enough before I became involved. I am sorry for that too. You warning to FL does, nevertheless, appear to be heavy-handed. However, regardless of what I think of that, I did jump to a conclusion. And for that, I also apologize.LCP 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem, LCP, don't worry. Bishonen | talk 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC).
LCP, when the RfC is over, if you ask nicely, /zilla might give you a massage - she gives a klller massage. It's to die for. --Justanother 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
['zilla inclines her head graciously towards the little JustaHulk, who sets up a tiny, terrified screaming. 'zilla lumbers off hurriedly.] Always with the shrill noises when 'zilla smile! Noises hurt ears! bishzilla ROARR!! 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
JustaHulk keep low profile. JustaHulk make good admin. Not bother anybody. --JustaHulk 15:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your hard work on the recent article you nominated for FA. The editor that insulted you has been blocked. I hope you don't feel that he/she represents the community that participates in FAC reviews. CLA 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You must probably mean the article that was on review at WP:FARThe Country Wife? Thank you for your kind comment. I don't really care about such very generalized and abstract insults, I don't take them personally. But the whole system whereby any editor can so easily enforce a review on FAR at any time—however inconvenient for the author—and for any reason—for instance, that they don't notice the cite system used—that gets to me, and I think it will in the long run have to be changed. It's hard to believe that writers will keep putting their best work on FAC when there's such high-handedness down the road, on FAR. Doesn't make any difference to me, though, as I'd already foresworn the FAC process. It was extravagantly unpleasant the last time I put an article through it. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

WTF[edit]

[121]. I think I am about to lose my cookies.--Popeye Doyle 21:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ordinary conflict with another editor"? Funny, I don't remember it like that. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
Oh, no. "Just ask us for the Sysop bit back?" That makes ArbCom into beaurocrats. We've had enough drama over the last 3 months, but we have been blessedly free of that drama brought by that person proclaiming as "center of the known universe to whom thousands per day look for opinions." If the personality has changed from the years before, the situation has changed. Do we need more betrayals of the mailing list's contents, more threats, more plotting on IRC? Is there some damned advantage? Why does that user need the bit? What is that user planning to do for Wikipedia that cannot be done without it? Blug. Geogre 22:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Let us cross the river and camp beneath the trees.

Disruptive Bad-Faith Ownership[edit]

Bishonen, I hate having to come to you repeatedly. But it seems that Smee is intent on disrupting the talk pages in numerous articles.

Smee is posting links to old versions, implying that they are correct and accurate, and noting how interesting it is that sources have been removed, implying bad faith removal by other editors, and noting how interesting it will be to come back later to see how much the article has changed.

This seems to be in very Bad-Faith and I have asked [User:Smee|Smee] to stop. As the messages indicated that Smee would no longer be watching the articles, I posted the request on Smee's talkpage in order to be sure it was seen. (added: And it was immediately removed).

I attempted to remove the disruptive comments and Smee has reverted them. As I have promised not to go to AN/I with this, I am coming to you instead.

Thank you. Lsi john 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing my comments from multiple article talkpages?[edit]

  • I am truly sorry to bother you again. Lsi john (talk · contribs) is removing my comments from multiple article talk pages, and calling them "Bad Faith". I am simply noting the state of the article as citations are being removed from that article, so that other editors can come back and easily see this. However, that is besides the point. It is extremely rude and weird for another editor to remove someone else's comments from an article talk page, unless those comments post that editor's personal off-Wiki contact information, or is a blatant personal attack, as far as I understood policy. But to remove another editor's comments just because that user feels it is "bad faith", seems to be a bit bad faith itself. I do not know what to do in this situation. Smee 21:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Again, to make it simple: I do not see how posting a comment with a link to an older page, and noting the number of citations the article had at that time, and then saying I am taking a break from that article, is in any way "disruptive", "own", or "bad faith", or anything of the sort. It is simply that - stating how many citations the article had at the time, nothing more, nothing less. But I would appreciate your input. Smee 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
      • You know what? Nevermind. Actually, if User:Lsi john really wants to be this disruptive, and remove my comments from talkpages, call them "bad faith", and edit war over comments on an article's talk page, that's fine. I am just going to remove them from my watchlist. It will be interesting to hear your feedback in any event. Again, I am sorry for bothering you. Yours, Smee 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
        • By the way, just to be clear, I Self-Reverted on each of the three articles' talkpages in question, back to the version where User:Lsi john removed my comments from the article talkpages, just so it is clear there is no confusion. Smee 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

[Talk:Lifespring] - edit summary: Reputable sourced citation removed..

== Reputable sourced citation removed... ==

  • I see that there were (27) citations in this article, and now (26). Here is the version with (27). I will take a break from this article, and pop back in after a while, and it will be interesting to see the progression/digression. Later, Smee 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


[Talk:Mind Dynamics] - edit summary: Taking a break

== Taking a break ==

  • I'm going to take a break from this article I had initially created and added (34) citations to, in order to focus on other things, including new article creation. It will be interesting to come back in a while and see the article's progression/digression. Smee 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


[Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training] - edit summary: 22 citations, now down to 16...

== 22 citations, now down to 16... ==

  • I see that we had (22) citations in this article, and are now down to (16). This is the version of the article with (22) citations. I'm going to take a break from this article which I initially wrote for a while, and it will be interesting to come back and see its progression/digression. Later, Smee 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC).


[Talk:Circle of Power]

== DYK Appearance ==

  • Here is the article 24 April 2007 as it appeared on DYK. Have fun editing the article. Smee 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC).

It should also be noted, that there are really no other 'active' editors for Smee to say Goodbye to on those articles.

These appear to be disruptive, bad-faith, presumptuous and condescending.

If these look like Good-Faith and polite commentary from Smee, then I will apologize. Lsi john 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Smee considers numbers and source-counting more important than relevance, accuracy and quality of the articles. Lsi john 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But that's just something that makes you angry, it's not being "disruptive". Disruptive is a very strong word, it refers to actions that badly disturb the functioning of the project. See Wikipedia:Disruption: "Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption. Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially." Surely those talkpage posts don't do that? Don't remove comments on talkpages, please, John. It takes very, very good reasons for that to be considered OK. Please instead just note your opinion of the posts, on the same pages. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
When Smee posted the first one a few days ago, I questioned it, but left it. Today, when three more appeared, I found it highly offensive that Smee would presume to assume and suggest that relevant citations had been (and would continue be) inappropriately removed and that the articles would digress. Taken in total, I felt the comments were rude, disruptive, presumptuous (and a few others).
I accept your opinion that they were not disruptive. I have reverted them back to the talk pages.
Smee, I apologize for characterizing your talk-page comments as disruptive. It seems I was incorrect about what is considered disruptive, for that I apologize.
Lsi john 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Bishonen, for noting the inappropriateness of User:Lsi john's actions. Please note the disparaging statements made by him about me at the talk pages for articles Lifespring, Mind Dynamics, and Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training, the exact same comment, which is unrelated to the content of each of those articles, but moreso just to disparage me on those article talk pages. This is highly inappropriate, but unlike User:Lsi john I am not going to remove that inappropriate comment. I will leave that up to you or him to talk about. I am done here, and if you wish to talk with me Bishonen, just message me on my talk page. This behaviour is extremely frustrating by this user, but at this point, a break is in order for me in any regard. Message my talk if you wish. Yours, Smee 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

The comment is very appropriate in rebuttal to your implication of my editing conduct. It is completely factual, and addresses the concerns you have raised about vanishing sources. If you do not want editing conduct to be discussed, then I suggest you not imply poor editing from other editors. Lsi john 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul cheat sheet[edit]

Since you've complained several times about the subject, here is your "Where's Raul" cheat sheet ;) Raul654 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gutted Ewok? somehow I would never have associated that with you. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dionysian Revels[edit]

Well, I've fixed Dionysius of Fourna. It doesn't actually stink now. I'm fixing to make a hymnist better. I hate it that we have articles like Richard Ayleward. What the hell does anyone gain from that? It's a fact, not an article. Geogre 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking good! [/me experimentally wikilinks synoptic Gospels, watches in amazement as it turns blue.]. Wow! Bishonen | talk 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

It happens. When Smith Barney posts on a page, people listen. Anyway, I'm arguing with myself about just how Rouge I'd be if I nuked Richard Ayleward as an A1 speedy delete only to rewrite it based on the Grove Dictionary of Music and the DNB. Arguably, I'd be doing it to be a glory hog. Arguably I would be performing a valid admin task at an invalid time in some glorious and harmless case of WP:POINT. Arguably, no one at all would even notice. Scruples! Don't you just hate 'em? Geogre 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did it. I expect to be brought up before the board for official censure now. Awful to have a complete article on Richard Ayleward, if we didn't preserve the vital work of the dude who wrote "Richard Ayleward was a composer." I also wrote a Frances Norton, Lady Norton, and I'm not sure if it's some plot by the DNB scholars to exclude all interesting women or some subconscious desire that directs my eyes only to the dull ones, but there's not a lot of there there, there. Geogre 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well, see talk:Desideratus: a photograph of him is needed, despite his dying in the year 550. Utgard Loki 16:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Bishzilla has fixed the portrait, I see. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
      • Hey! That's my brother you put a picture of! (I knew we couldn't trust that portrait painter to not make copies!) Utgard Loki 17:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Is anyone noticing that I'm not removing it? The -bots want a photo? Let the -bots determine if it's appropriate. After all, if an automated process is capable of making the judgment that a photo is "needed," then they surely possess the discernment to know if the photos are good ones. I apologize to Saint Desideratus, of course. Geogre 00:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, another question. See, if you will, for a moment, 1698 in literature and the section "New books." See there? I, the fearful porpentine frost giant, have editorialized. I have done so for a single year, and it's indisputaf*ckably true. Still, I remember telling Thor a true thing, too, and he still wanted to whack me with his hammer. Utgard Loki 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

The WP:FAC process is supposed to work by civil discourse, not by threats. Don't talk like that or you may find yourself blocked. Bishonen | talk 20:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

  • Warn him for being uncivil then. Epbr123 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see him being uncivil, give me a link for it, please. Mind you, you don't get to threaten people under any circumstances. "Remove your Oppose or..." is no way to talk. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
I've been uncivil in the past and received two blocks for it, so I'm aware of civility related issues - I've served my time so to speak on other issues, so I don't see why Epbr123 feels I need a warning personallu. I replied on my talk page in a rather frank manner which may be considered uncivil, but there you go - I just didn't like the "remove your oppose or else" type attitude, even though I was a little hasty in my reply. I've also started discussion on the FAC talk page regarding the issue, especially since she called SandyGeorgia "a sad bastard" for Sandy's opposes to the noms a few weeks back. Even though I'm not exactly a nice guy sometimes on Wikipedia, thanks for your time in the matter though I hope it doesn't descend into anything else further and it can be resolved in a cool manner - I just don't wish for Epbr123 to cause further trouble for me that's all as I wish to keep my head low on Wikipedia for awhile. Unfortunately, she's removed your warning so I can't see the issue being resolved anytime soon. LuciferMorgan 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
He's opposing my facs for no good reason and refusing to move them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. "Don't talk like that or you may find yourself blocked." - isn't this a threat? Epbr123 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, no link to support your accusation of incivility. No, an administrative warning is not a threat, it's a chance for you to pull up and pull in your horns with no harm done. Admins are required to warn before blocking. People complain, quite reasonably, if they're blocked without having been warned first. Please avoid personal attacks, and note that uncivil edit summaries[122] are particularly ill regarded. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC).
Look harder for the link then. It wasn't an incivil summary. You interfered with the argument, ignorant of the full facts.Epbr123 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No link to support your accusation. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

By the way, top-posting is needed to indicate who you are talking too. Epbr123 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute#3RR is not an entitlement