User talk:Major Bonkers

Meltdown

Do you happen to know what happened here? (it's supposed to be red) Anynobody 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a strop, I expect. I've noticed that some people blank their User pages as a form of pissed-off protest (eg. Guy) and others seem to be under the bizarre delusion that, in not posting a User page, they are somehow saving Mr. Wales a vast sum in server-hosting charges.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision. As far as I can work out, someone called Tony Sidaway referred to Bishonen as a 'bastard bitch from hell'. He did this on the Admin IRC, and a whole load of Bishonen-enthusiasts, whose names will be wearisomely familiar, then took it upon themselves to vandalise the corresponding Wikipedia article, Wikipedia:IRC_channels/wikipedia-en-admins - in other words, doing themselves exactly what the rest of us are always told not to do. It's all up before the ArbCom, who, seem to be adopting a bit of fudge for the resolution of this latest outbreak of cretinism; the obvious judgment would be a de-SysOp-ing of any Admin found to have engaged in naughtiness, but that's not happening. This is Giano's 4^h. ArbCom in eighteen months.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to believe that we're to listen and respect such a bastion of rational self control. Though it does make actions like blocking someone out of the blue without warning or resenting those who disagree with her much easier to understand.

These are strange times where I'm finding it difficult to understand why people do what they do. Giano must be some sort of masochist, I can't think of a recent arbcom case that actually resolved anything so being involved in yet another case seems a bit, odd.

Speaking of weird things people do, did the Cruiser make any news in your area regarding the video of him speaking about Scientology and their legal actions to get it nixed from the web? (I assume the biography did.) Anynobody 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my own take is that some people take Wikipedia far too seriously; the puerile palimpest that runs alongside the actual articles - the various Talk pages, AN/I, ArbCom, etc. - is generally so stupid that it - it seems to me - actually discourages anyone with any sense or maturity from contributing. My feeling about Lloyd's of London is that it is a place where any honest man should be ashamed to say that they do business, and my feeling about WP is rather similar. Most of us have got better things to do than waste our time with somebody else's out-of-control children.

During the Troubles ArbCom, someone explained to Rockpocket how they had managed to track down one of the participant's (W. Frank's) address, because he had used his real identity; they had had to go through a number of reasonably complicated steps to work it out. Rockpocket was astonished that anyone would bother to go to the effort, and I have to say that I agree with him: it strikes me as completely bizarre.

Regarding Giano, he pops in for a chat over here every so often; I've nothing against him - he's always been polite to me (if forceful) - but the relationship that he has with the ArbCom doesn't seem particularly healthy. I suspect that they rather need each other.

By the way, I have added some links to photographs in our recent discussion which is now in my archive; I'm too idle to drag the whole thing out, but you'll find links to our esteemed politicians making clear their contempt for the rest of us. As for the Cruiser, see: Tom Cruise compared to Joseph Goebbels; of course, in one important respect this comparison is completely false! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, there are quite a few people who definitely take it way more seriously than they should. I've seen more than one meltdown where a person swears off ever contributing here again and is back sooner or later anyway. (If you watch User talk:Jimmy Wales long enough you'll see a few of them. Here's one that looks ready to go critical soon User talk:Jimmy Wales#Your Lack of Involvement on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Projects) I feel embarrassed for them, choosing to flip out in such a public forum over essentially nothing.

I have nothing against him either, actually I feel like he is generally misunderstood. (Whatever the case, he didn't really want to be on the arbcom even if he doesn't realize it yet.)

Wow, the Goebbels aspect is even more creepy, when reading their reply: ... urging other people to become involved in similar humanitarian activities to the betterment of all. After all, the Nazis only wanted "help" the rest of the world too. (They'd of been better off either saying nothing or saying, "Yeah, he likes being a Scientologist..." instead of suing to have it removed and implying the good of human kind is involved.) Anynobody 08:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the link to Herr Wales' Talk page - I expect some helpful Admin has 'oversighted' the rant in question.

You're probably interested in more fallout from The Cruiser: Hackers wage web war on Scientologists. I can't help feeling that he should worship something more normal, like Great Cthulu, for example. But why would anyone pay any attention to his religious proselytising, or his political views, come to that? He's only a hack actor, not particularly well-educated, and his views are no more valid that anyone else's --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you on the unimportance of the Cruiser's views, (except on oral care, the man has great teeth); I've never been a big Brad Pitt fan but he did earn my respect when some reporter asked him about his views on Tibet several years ago. He said something like "I'm an actor, who gives a fuck what I think about that?"

On the oversighted rant, I wonder if he ever bothers to read what others throw away or even knows it's going on. Anynobody 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I took your advice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek (second nomination). Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, although I'm not sure that you have taken my advice, which is to leave well alone.

As I say, my experience of these !votes and 'debates' is that they almost always end up pissing people off and generally cause more trouble than they're worth. To that extent I've become an 'inclusionist', although with the obvious exceptions of hoax and/or malicious articles. Whilst the subject of Law in Star Trek is certainly not to my taste, I have to recognise that someone has gone to a lot of work to produce it. I see that my other favourite example of misapplied labour, the Murloc (a creature from the World of Warcraft computer game), has also bitten the dust. In fact, if you are inclined, I suggest, the entire List of species in fantasy fiction could be reviewed 'with extreme prejudice'!

I suspect, in general terms, the problem is that some of the younger contributors enjoy editing articles such as these and, mutatis mutantis, deleting 'boring' articles, such as those of a 16h. century provincial farmer, and those of us of 'more mature years' have editing interests which are exactly the opposite. The end result is that you end up with a bizarre agglomeration of trivia rather than the 21t. century equivalent of the great Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.

Anyway, although I don't propose to insert myself into the !vote, it looks to be shaping up into a most entertaining battle, so I shall certainly keep an eye on it! Good luck.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - I suppose this is a 'personal attack', but I really can't see why DGG can claim that Simon Dodsworth is OR ([...] I think the primary sources given represent the whole of the information available, and the subject has been discussed in no secondary sources at all.) and that Law in Star Trek isn't (This is a compilation of material sourced from the primary source in an obvious fashion, and thus not OR.). That's a bit Humpty Dumpty-ish to me; an example, perhaps, of policies and essays being used to support the editor's subjective opinions of worth.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are all the prisoners of our POV, the best we can expect is that others will make us aware of our biases and assumptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do hope they don't. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Let the war begin! Onwards, sons of James Tiberius Kirk! (I expect that they will win, simply on the grounds that there are more of them.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I thought your response above was quite thoughtful. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For no reason at all

I felt it would be a good idea to address anyone's concerns about why some tragic events are called "massacres" here, just in case anyone was wondering. It's because the sources call them massacres, not because the Major says they are. If someone feels an equally tragic event should have the same label, all that's necessary is a source calling said event a massacre. For example, one might wonder why the Dublin and Monaghan bombings made it on the List of massacres since it's title calls it a bombing. Well indeed it was a bombing, but according to The Guardian it was a bomb massacre. In short, should anyone be concerned with these issues, it's not our opinions that matter so much as what the sources have to say. Anynobody 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link - I'd have missed it if you hadn't spotted it. I think that I agree with you; I looked again this morning at the list, and it seems extraordinary that various other massacres aren't there: the Holocaust being the most obvious, the 1930s Stalin-engineered famine in the Ukraine, and Mao Tse Tung's 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Cultural Revolution' (which, incidentally, are estimated to have killed 60 million people - 10 times the amount in the Holocaust) are all missing. Is Pol Pot's 'Killing Fields' in there? And what about the Siege of Jericho and (my own bug-bear) the Kitos War?

What ought to be a simple disambiguation page is, instead, a snake-pit of nationalist POV-pushers. My massacre's bigger than your massacre! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_massacres#Change_of_Direction.3F. Tyrenius (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can recognise a poisoned chalice when I see one! As Samuel O'Goldwyn said, 'Include me out'! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have one on me: Major Ity. Tyrenius (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to admit I laughed. But what a bloody awful pun!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BLAH!

Thanks for pointing out my gaffe, Major Bonkers, I just had the quote running through my head but couldn't remember where it came from, and googled the quote, and this was the first hit that came up. [1]. That'll teach me to trust WikipediaGoogle ;) SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir F., I just couldn't stop myself! Not that you'd know from Wikipedia, but there's more to Ireland than the Potato Famine, the Troubles, and Massacres (there's Gunniness, leprechauns, the Blarney stone, Molly Malone, Bailey's Irish Cream, shamrocks, Irish Elk, wolfhounds, and stew). --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous majors

Hello. Would you be averse to the addition to your user page of Major Boredom, adjutant to General Apathy, as made famous by BF5's "Battle of Who Could Care Less‎"? --Sturm 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! ( [...] as made famous by [...] ?)--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Major

I have just joined and was following a trail of user pages. Yours was the most entertaining I have seen. I would not have dared put the one about the foxes, does it not get vandalised by black-hoodie wearing hunt sabbies? I am still working out how you do the 'user boxes', so as to put something very silly on my page. The gay orgy bit was priceless. Next stop Kittybrewster page as you say she (he?) helped out with yours. Best. West one girl (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I 'borrowed' your user box thing and adapted it as you can now see on my talk page. I kept the 'Dame Shirley' one, however. Perhaps there should be a separate user category for this? West one girl (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Funny? I'm deadly serious. As for plagarism - words fail me! (Replied on your Talk page.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong quote

I much prefer this one:

The David Lauder one has been categorically denied by the editor in question. It seems to me that Domer48 should either go for a checkuser or WP:AGF and let the matter drop.

Good advice wasn't it? How about an addition to your userpage - Major Fuckup perhaps? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. If it is that David Lauder has acted foolishly in using two accounts, I'm not going to disagree with you; so, indeed, did your friend. If it's that I was somehow stupid in not spotting vote-rigging in an AfD, I point you to what I actually wrote: 'I saw no evidence of vote-rigging or concert-parties on the 'British' side'. If you read that carefully, it remains true: I didn't see any evidence of it and nor, incidentally, was any produced. Regarding my quotation, you've also edited out the highly relevant preceeding section: *Point 3: Domer48 has provided two diffs which allege abusive sockpuppetry. [...] I stand by (the entirety of) what I wrote because I draw a distinction between abusive sockpuppetry and using multiple accounts for valid reasons: as W. Frank and Kittybrewster felt obliged to do.

Whilst you're here, I can't really see the point in constantly picking at scabs. According to your own account, the root of the problem was the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD, which took place over a year ago. Since then we've had the ArbCom and things are more-or-less settled. Is it really desirable to stoke the embers in this unproductive way? If it is, we're going to be arguing back and forth until Judgment Day. Goodbye. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two accounts?! Christchurch, David Lauder and Chelsea Tory - that's three according to my rudimentary maths skills? And I don't consider my quoting any more selective than your reading. For example you claim Domer48 should have asked for a checkuser, but here is where the original sockpuppetry in question was discussed. I'll paste the relevant parts here to be on the safe side:

Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person........Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You would agree that although then (July 2007) you hadn't seen any evidence of votestacking from the "British" side, you've seen plenty now yes? Note I'm referring to the new checkuser as well, not just those quotes.

As for W. Frank. If he'd chosen to ride off into the sunset and edit articles about Singapore and the like, nobody would be any the wiser would they? However, surely you must admit that he willingly engaged with Troubles editors and carried on the dispute with his new account? You'd agree with that yes? The diffs are in the checkuser to prove it if you really want to disagree?

Now for Kittybrewster. This isn't quite right. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that Kittybrewster is happily editing Wikipedia. If I wanted to make public the account (or maybe even accounts, who can say?) he was editing using, I could easily do so. But I choose not to, as everyone deserves a second chance. W. Frank had a second chance, yet chose to blow it so I was happy to make sure it was brought to the attention of the relevant people. I'm sure you'll be reading this Kittybrewster, so be sure to bear that in mind won't you?

As for the rest, it depends how you define stoking the embers? I uncovered what I believed to be unacceptable behaviour, a deliberate attempt to votestack using multiple accounts in ArbCom elections. I'm sure, as an English (I assume?) gentleman, you believe in the spirit of fair play? I thought what I saw was grossly unfair, and acted accordingly. Belive it or not I am a fair person. I'm too lazy to track down the diff, but if you check AN you'll also see I was happy for Counter-revolutionary to be unblocked under certain circumstances, rather than campaigning for an indefinite block for him. Never got a word of thanks for that one though! ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite keen to log off - it's bath-time for my son and I'm in charge - and I don't really see any great purpose would be achieved by continuing this conversation. Just for the record, I don't check AN/I regularly and so missed the first of the David Lauder discussions to which you refer and only came across the most recent one this morning. I don't think that threatening Kittybrewster, especially on this page, is particularly big of you, especially as he has just as much right to edit as you or I. Can I leave you with one observation: when I read your post, above, it seems to me that you are trying to persuade me or get me to admit that you are right. In some respects you are right - I can particularly appreciate a sense of justice - but, it seems to me, wrong in others. Frankly, however, why should you care what I think about you? Presumably when you look in the mirror you're satisfied that you have acted properly, and, on that basis good luck to you.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's on the most recent AN discussion, bold as brass. Who said I was threatening Kittybrewster? That's a rather dubious interpretation of what I said. It's supposed to be more along the lines of "your secret is safe with me", which it is as I've no intention of making any information public if the account isn't used abusively. My intent was to reassure, not threaten. And as you say, he has just as much right to edit as you or I, providing it isn't disruptively.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassurance and paralipsis are easily confused. Choess (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the greeting. Ps, do you know how to give out warnings? This user, User talk:Stwrt, has continually removed sourced information from Lord Torphichen. Thanks, --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this chap has a whole load of templates on his User page; it might be that one of them is what you're looking for: Fredrick day. This is also a quite useful page (although in a different context); Template:Who.

If and when you find it, would you mind sticking one on Kittybrewster's Talk page? Delighted as I am to have him back, he's been fiddling around with my additions to Ron Sandler. (Is it only me, or does this man look as though he's wearing a specs, nose, and beard novelty mask? - look closely the next time you see his photograph in the newspaper.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got one up now. Yes, he does rather! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Very like a novelty mask. I was seeking to reflect what was written in the article as opposed to your interpretation of it. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WR

The thread in question is still there, you might want to consider registering an account even if you don't want to post. Just a hint.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I find there's quite enough fruitless drama here without going elsewhere for more. On the other hand, I am grateful to Astrotrain because his postings keep me up to date. Oddly enough, at the beginning of the week I was looking for a 'common sense' barnstar for Tyrenius - I'm sure that I had seen it somewhere, but couldn't find it - and I came across a 'rehabilitated' barnstar, which I very nearly posted you-know-where until I thought that it would be seen as a provocation. Moot now. I'm off to post on Rockpocket's Talk page and then bath-time calls. PS - despite all the nice things that they've written about me, perhaps you could please point out to them that I most definitely am not a fan of Guy! --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me spell it out, it's easy enough to read between the lines of what I just said surely? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to spell it out. My attitude is that if it's in plain view, I'll look at it; if I have to exert myself, and especially if my signing-up could be construed as support, I can't be bothered. Given that Rockpocket's already complaining of harassment, posting on Wikipedia Review about him isn't likely to be helpful to anyone. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, MB. With the exception of a few well meaning souls, most of the regulars over there are genuinely bonkers. There was a thread there recently speculating who I am a sock puppet of, the two prime candidates being Durova and FeloniousMonk (which is kind of amusing, since I don't believe I have ever interacted with either of them). They were also trying to analyse my writing style to determine whether I am British or American. They were entirely wrong on both counts of course, but paranoia colours the mind (thats colour with a "u" for those watching), I suppose.

I just dropped by to note I agree with your comments at AN this evening. Referring to Lauder (the editor) in those terms is bad form. I wasn't aware that was happening, but it shouldn't. Rockpocket 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The last panel of 'Roadkill Bill' is unpleasantly accurate

Thank you for yours. Oh dear, as if there isn't enough drama over here, people seek more excitement over there; it looks like more of the same, but even more moronic (if such a thing is possible)! As a declaration of interest, I've previously been accused of running two sock-puppets, MJB and (the now banned) General Peabody.

I've also been giving some thought to the problems of anonymity and sock-puppetry. Starting with anonymity first: I very nearly began my editing career by posting using my real name - thank God I didn't - and swiftly decided against adding an e-mail link. Your own unpleasant experience demonstrates how valuable some form of anonymity is.

On the other hand, of course, we have these great searches for sock-puppets, which take up a huge amount of community time and effort. Under the current arrangements, sock-puppets can never be stopped; in certain circumstances, indeed, they are allowed (eg. editing pornography articles). The ease with which sock-puppets can be created and used to evade blocks and bans means that any effort to uncover them is effectively wasted because the editor can simply pop-up elsewhere and resume where he left off.

Added to this is the shear futility of hunting down sock-puppets: none of us came into Wikipedia with the burning desire to hunt down sock-puppets, yet productive editors are side-tracked into the aberrant behaviour of searching and cross-referencing hundreds or even thousands of Diffs and praised and rewarded for doing so. Try and imagine a conversation with someone who knows nothing about Wikipedia: editing is a collaborative process involving multiple anonymous editors iteratively creating and expanding articles. Fair enough, most people will get that and the altruism behind it. But then try and explain hunting down sock-puppets: 'But I thought anyone could edit?'; 'But you're not blocking accounts used for vandalism, you're blocking accounts used by a User who is disapproved of regardless of his contributions'; 'Aren't you supposed to WP:AGF and be (as much as possible) 'contributor-blind'?'; 'What's to stop him doing it all over again?'

The conclusion that I come to is this: that after a certain time, around when most editors start to work out that they need an archive and add one to their Talk page, there should also be some process whereby they can confirm their identity and, hopefully, avoid all the huge waste of effort, not to say poisoning of what should be a collaborative atmosphere, involved with sock-puppetry allegations and investigations. Uncorroborated anonymity is an idea whose time has been and gone. I think that Wikipedia produces decent articles despite the diverted effort involved in hunting down sock-puppets: the end result of this stupid 'Wiki-drama' is that it acts as a huge turn-off to anyone who comes to be involved in it.

Dealing with your second point, I was a bit disappointed by BrownHairedGirl's description which (I hope!) was more in the way of making her point rather than making a criticism of David Lauder. I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the subject, but British far-right politicians (as opposed to thugs) have a political philosophy of freedom under the law, economic liberalism, and restricted immigration, quoting Edmund Burke rather than their Continental cousins who quote Nietzsche and invade Poland. It came across as a bit weasel-y, I'm afraid.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"yet productive editors are side-tracked into the aberrant behaviour of searching and cross-referencing hundreds or even thousands of Diffs" - actually no. I didn't need to do that, as the evidence accumulated inside two hours was ample. And you are correct that describing DL as a "politician" is bad form, I think "letter writer" is more appropriate personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (Kings Road)

I agree with your comment. I've added enough stuff to hold off a deletion. Pouncing on new articles with an AfD seems highly inappropriate to me and completely against the founding principles of the project. It might be useful to introduce a guideline that unless an article is clearly vandalism it should be allowed to stand for at least a month before an AfD is started. Much would be gained and nothing would be lost. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, above, and your intervention on the article and AfD vote. I think that the AfD was very badly advised and, given that it was directed against a new editor's contribution, had the real potential to come across as either bullying or disparagement of West one girl's efforts. I notice that the nominator seems to have a thing about AfD's (see the big red notice on his Talk page), and I'm not convinced at all that what could be seen as a rather aggressive or proactive approach to deleting articles is particularly helpful: it certainly isn't presenting a welcoming face to new editors. There's some comments above, phrased rather pompously, I'm afraid, which set out my thoughts on AfDs in some more detail which you might be interested in. Regarding your proposal, I broadly agree with it; frankly, however, I think that an established editor concerned about something written by a new editor should make an effort to explain and educate that new editor rather than making free with the AfD templates, which is very much an easy option; this sort of thinking is, more-or-less, the purpose behind WP:BITE. I think that we have too many guidelines as it is; everyone knows, or should know, how to behave properly.

I'm fairly sure that one or two Admins keep an eye on this page; perhaps they'll either have a word with the miscreant or take your thoughts on a guideline forward! Thank you again. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

wikidrama

I am both stupid, and love wikidrama lol! Thanks. I would love to be able to create a userbox. Is it difficult? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Well, don't make yourself stupider ^{which I don't believe for a moment, by the way} by continuing to read or (worse) post on WP:AN/I!

I made up a lot of the User boxes on my User pages myself, which took a lot of trial and error. However, the source code is still there, if you want to look, and it's simply a case of copying and pasting, and then substituting your own picture and text and, if you like, a different background colour. With your User box, I set up a sub-page, User:Major Bonkers/Wikidrama, which then becomes a template simply by, when linking to it, changing the squared-off brackets ('[' and ']') to the ogeed variety ('{' and '}'). If you click on the 'Edit this page' buttons and take a look at the source code, you'll see how it's done.

Do you think that the chart on the IQ page might be better that the picture of Ali G?

I'm afraid that I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, being entirely self-taught; however, if you'd like some help in your own efforts I'll do my best. (I find the continuous Wiki-drama so dispriting that I'm on a go-slow as far as editing is concerned at the moment until I recharge my batteries.)

Thank you for dropping by - it's good to know that my efforts weren't entirely wasted!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - see: Wikipedia:Userbox Maker. --Major Bonkers (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ali G is more funny than a chart IMHO lol he's intrinsically funny. I imagine Homer Simpson as the epitome of stupid, Ali G is more imaginative though. My Other Half just suggested Amy Winehouse. This is assuming you don't want to use an actual picture of a person with Downs Syndrome, but I think such a userbox would be rapidly deleted as not politically correct lol:) Thanks for the tips on making them- I may have to have a go!Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think we could use this [2] :) But w could use this [3]. I still think the Ali G is best :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 11:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali G it is then - what a pity we can't get a better picture, though. I think that, on grounds of good taste, I must reject your other pictures!--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This user believes AN/I can be useful. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...but it attracts the wrong sort of people; those WHO LIKE TO SHOUT A LOT, are prone to hysteria, post on the same topic over multiple pages, and get so caught up in the wikidrama that they neglect their useful work in editing for the joy of scoring points over their perceived enemies. Eventually there is often a spectacular departure from Wikipedia as it dawns on these individuals that, actually, no-one really cares about what they think and that they are viewed as a discordant minority.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - Have you seen Tyrenius's new signature? Isn't it awful.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Dar major, if only you could help me set up an archive page. I really don't have the faintest idea. I'm intrigued by the rat-eating. West one girl (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I followed up the link to the rat-eating article. Very good, only, er, it needs a bit more flesh, as it were. I have a very old book that may have something on this. West one girl (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Major - thank you so much for putting the archiving thing on my talk page. I shall wait with pleasure as all those old items drop off. How did you know I am interested in fashion? Actually, it's the history of the 'Swinging London' period and the King's Road, John Steed and Emma Peel and all that, which I am interested in - but Union Jack coats were all very much part of that weren't they. I think your project runs the risk of unspeakable fashion train wrecks and great care recommended, perhaps consult with your wife at the next board meeting. I know this company has exactly the item you want but you want to avoid looking like an football hooligan. One possibility is vintage clothes shops (e.g. there's a good one at the lower end of the Fulham Rd near the junction with Finborough Rd). They won't have the item in stock but they really know the market, and if you can always get a local tailor to alter it for you. Otherwise it's the proper London tailors and I am sure they will do a good job but it will cost you probably thousands. I think it works better on women on the whole. Although this looks interesting. West one girl (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. I was certainly thinking of something a little more distinguished than wet-look plastic, though. The kilts on the same web-site look interesting, especially as they come with a built-in sporran: whoever came up with the idea of an 'all-in-one' is a genius (all the bits and pieces - sporran, kilt pin, and various armament - is terribly easy to lose, especially if you end the evening a little bit drunk).--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Limey!

I was reading up on early relations between our nations and thought I'd get your perspective on what a dumb-ass insult "limey" is, which as you probably know was a reference to the navy's desire for sailors who didn't get scurvy. I imagine the sailors liked the idea too, so someone using that as an insult seems dumb. (Personally it'd be like insulting people for doing something like brushing their teeth. "Ya tooth brushin' bastard!") Anynobody 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that every British schoolchild is (or at least, was) taught that Captain Cook forced his sailors to drink lime juice on his great voyages of exploration. (Although I have read a book recently which suggested that there were earlier captains who pioneered this practice, but he got the historical credit.) The Victorians invented Rose's lime juice, still available today, for the purpose of preventing scurvy without having to carry a supply of fresh citrus fruit. Sir Francis Drake, in his circumnavigation of the world, by contrast, lost half his crew (although he did take a Spanish treasure galleon on the way). He also claimed California (or Nova Albion) for Queen Elizabeth, by the way, so I suppose that it's still technically ours... .

We British, of course, refer to you lot as 'Yanks' without distinction, although that, strictly speaking, only applies to Northerners. It comes out as 'short planks' or 'septic tanks' in cockney rhyming slang.

It's my belief, from what I've read, that Anglo-American relations, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s, were poor, mostly due to American antipathy to the British Empire and stirred up by the Yellow Press. Winston Churchill (who, of course, had an American mother) did a great deal to improve relations with the Americans; we were lucky that FDR agreed to lend-lease whilst the then Republican party was strongly isolationist. Clearly, in retrospect, we can see that one of FDR's war aims was the weakening or dismantling of the Empire and in that he largely, through accident or design, succeeded. There was a small but influential opinion, by the way, (held by Evelyn Waugh and Alan Clark, amongst others) that Britain should have relaxed on the sidelines of the Second World War after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and let those two fight it out between themselves; by continuing to wage war, Churchill was undermining the continued existence of the Empire after the war.

You might be interested in the book, 'Nemesis', by Max Hastings; it's all about the war against the Japanese - I think you'd enjoy it.

If you want to see the fur fly, by the way, keep an eye here! --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can totally see calling someone a septic tank as an insult, not a very pleasant thing to be compared to. Being called, in essence, scurvy-free seems like a compliment. "Look at that limey!" reply "Thank you for noticing my bloodless gums. I feel good too :)" compared to "Look at that septic tank!" reply "Are you talkin' to me?" The yanks never came up with any good names for their "traditional" enemies, redcoats and grays. Limey for you, rebs for grays. Oh well, I suppose if I had to choose between cool names for my enemies and victory I guess victory would have to do ;)

Couldn't agree more about American's not giving a damn as the Nazi's, Italians and Japanese decided to expand until it showed up somewhat closer to home. (For the most part, there were some who knew what was really at stake and said so, but like those of us today who felt the Iraqi excursion was a bad idea, were ignored.) I've always felt the same about its attitude toward WWI, not worth worrying about until some Americans were on a torpedoed liner and a pie in the sky telegram was intercepted to Mexico both by Germans, that it became worth our while. (WWI was a prime example of a stupid war, it only accomplished setting up Europe for Hitler and Stalin.)

FDR, I believe, wanted us in the war badly (not so badly as to intentionally let us get "kicked in the balls" at Pearl harbor though). We're all lucky he was President then, however at the same time he did kind of blow it by not seeing Stalin for who he really was which brings me to the leader who did, Churchill. He was awesome, and we were lucky that he was running the show (for most of the war at least) in the UK. He wasn't flawless either of course, but you gotta love a guy who had such a way with words, ...But tomorrow I shall be sober while you will still be ugly. Seriously though I've actually used one of his quotes as a guide for editing here: Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Unless a sensible reason can be stated for me to give in, I simply don't :) (Though he probably wouldn't have been my choice for a peace time PM.)

I personally think that while letting the Nazis and Commies slug it out would have been very pragmatic and sensible in the context of the Cold War, it gambles on the Soviets not losing. Had they actually lost, think what would've happened, Germany would have been able to exploit resources and the vast distance of the USSR to create factories well beyond the range of any plane flying from the UK and worse still possibly have been able to enter the Pacific War. Plus, without Stalin to worry about the Japanese could redeploy forces they had to keep in Manchuria to check the Soviets, making things even worse for the Chinese and other Allies in that theater. Of course we can all thank Hitler for thinking himself a general and screwing things up more than once, but still even with his meddling had the Reich been able to fully commit everything against the Soviets I think they had a good chance of winning.

I'll check out Nemesis, recent years have found my interest in the Pacific war increasing. I used to only be interested in the European theater because, whatever else one says about them, the Nazis had cool airplanes, tanks, and ships with interesting stories. (Graf Spee, Tiger tanks, Type XXI uboat and of course the Me-262). Anynobody 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but we had the bouncing bomb and the Tallboy bomb. And the Spitfire, surely the loveliest airplane, especially with the evocative roar of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. And the X-craft (powered by a bus engine). It's actually my contention that the British genius in warfare is for cobbled-together bits and pieces and the 'it's a long shot... but it just might work!' mentality. I suspect that we're actually pretty crap at the set-piece battle. The American mentality is to spend huge amounts of expensive effort in killing its enemies and rescuing its own: death by over-bombardment!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, our stuff was way better, for the most part and in the end. The British knack for innovation did indeed seem to be the cobbled together type sometimes, but it worked well more than once. We had our own "...kooky, but just might work" ideas too though, like the bat bomb. (Can't forget you folks did create the Merlin which was the final component in what I think was hands down the war's best fighters: The P-51B-C & D Mustangs but did you know the angled flight deck was another British innovation?) I don't know why, the Spitfire doesn't really appeal to me aesthetically as much as the Mosquito, but I have strange taste in "beautiful" aircraft.

death by over-bombardment! I think that sums up American research goals in WW II nicely. Especially considering what, how and when the war finally ended these goals were a factor in all aspects. Anynobody 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bat-bombs - the mind boggles! It's as weird as the plan to make an aircraft carrier out of pycrete. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Bean

Is it just me or does the new Russian President look like he could be a close relative of Mr. Bean? Anynobody 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Mr. Bean. He looks like someone, though, I can't just remember who. Time for a new list: People who look like Dmitry Medvedev? His predecessor was supposed to look like Dobby or, more flatteringly, the bridegroom in the Arnolfini Wedding.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oi! I dinnough say 'e looked like Bean 'imself, but like a rela'ive or somfin, Uncle Boris Bean ya knob ;) Putin, or rather I should say, Dobby looks like Putin may indeed have provided inspiration but I wasn't aware Jan van Eyck stole his face too ;) Speaking of him though, I seriously doubt Putin had that guy who's name escapes me poisoned with Polonium. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff came from a Russian source, but given the poisons known to be used by the KGB, I don't see why they'd choose something so 1) Toxic to whoever was delivering it 2) easily traceable and 3) took so long to work (weeks), when they could've just poked the guy with an umbrella and he'd of been dead three or four days later. Anynobody 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help citing an example

I was thinking about examples of WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown and was hoping you'd be able to provide an example well known in your neighbourhood like this one my from mine: I don't keep up with baseball so my details may be wrong, but a couple of years ago during a crucial game for some team, a fan caught a fly ball which was within reach of a player. Because the fan caught it, the ball was determined to be a foul, but had the player caught it the batter would've been out which was desirable for the home team who went on to lose. (If I remember correctly the fans mistake actually may have lost them the game) Anyway, that poor, dumb, bastard seems like a good example of someone who may have gotten news coverage but doesn't warrant an article here to cite when discussing the issue with Americans. Do you know of any poor, dumb, bastards one could cite for y'all? Anynobody 06:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was reading an article on just this subject in Wired magazine yesterday; see: Scott Brown's 72 Hours on the Long Tail of Celebrity. There's also the chap who tied all those helium balloons to his sun-lounger and floated away over Los Angeles airport (I think that he got an honorary mention in the 'Darwin Awards'). Posh Spice and Paris Hilton are excluded, I suppose, on the grounds that although pointless they are known. Could you, perhaps, include the Admin Guy? It's a bit of a difficult one: people that you have heard of but only so vaguely that you cannot remember their name. It would certainly be a long list! --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of Larry Walters, who does have an article! And for someone who got plenty of news coverage (mostly about what an odious racist thug he was...) try Matthew Simmons.One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, thank you! Matthew Simmons is almost exactly what I was looking for :) And a thanks to the Major for knowing the baseball guy's name too :) I still plan on calling him "the baseball guy", lest the fact that his name is known derail my argument. Simmons will be called either the soccer or football jerk depending on the audience. (Speaking of the difference in names, I think part of the reason I never got into football as we call it in the US is because only one man on each team can legally kick the damn ball, so who thought to call it football? It'd be like calling soccer handball.) Anynobody 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening Major!

Dear Major Bonkers,

I don't believe you've had the pleasure of me before, but I've a small matter, well actually rather a long one, which may be of interest to someone of a military and distinguished bearing such as yourself. My cousin Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (an army man like yourself) has been moved with no consensus to a horrid little page with half his names removed as though he were a tradesman, or something of that ilk (dare I say, even an American). Perhaps you and your friends would would like to comment on the talk page. While dear Leon died honourably in the service of his King I have to confess there is little to make him notable other than his name, and it seems a travesty that he should be shorn of it. Do comment, you'll find yourself in most distinguished company.

While I'm here, I was wondering - are you of the Berkshire Bonkers? several of my distant cousins were Bonkers too, but of the Bedfordshire branch. I see you were at Harrow, many of my family were there, you are probably a contemporary of my brother Arsie (Viscount Broadmoor), I beleive you were in Elmfield too. It is so important that "our sort" stick together in these matters. Do drop by my page one afternoon, I usually take Lapsang Souchong at 4.

Your ever, Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you a sockpuppet [4]? Not that I worry very much about these things, but it's nice to know who I'm talking to (good manners, too, I dare say). Happy editing. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, barking up the wrong tree there. However, I take your point, dear Major, but does one ever know who one is addressing on Wikipedia these days. I was only discussing this last month over dinner, at Birkhall, with the dear Duchess of Rothesay, a very close friend. Now do hurry up and go and save poor Cousin Tollemache before he loses any more of his remaining identity. If people like you don't stand up for these bastions of the British identity, who will? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you still a sockpuppet [5]? You should be careful; one of my regular correspondents takes a rather dim view of them.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello Major. For reasons not entirely clear (to me, at least) Werdnabot is not longer active and his owner asked for the associated pages to be deleted. However, User:MiszaBot III does the same job, and should be able to take over your archiving. This page explains how to set it up. If you have any problems with the code, let me know and I can do it for you. Rockpocket 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Being and Nothingness: political commentary?

Hi Major – when I read your references for this thread, I realised it wasn't about intellectuals drawing the heat, but that the Poles were in a land-locked political vise combining position, history and the ambitions of their traditional enemies. Topped off with yalta betrayal by the allies as well, it was truly tragic situation for them. As this detoured from the original question just didn't want to go on about it in the thread But thank you for putting me onto that – helpful and sad at the same time. By the way you might like to vet Major Payne for your majors list. Not classy, but definitely embodied in popular culture. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)